The Story of a Great Discovery, Vygodsky, 1965

Conclusion

Forty years of work on "Capital". " I laugh at the so-called 'practical' men with their wisdom." The topicality of "Capital". "Capital" and present-day capitalism. The prospects of a new economic social formation. Marx's views of communist political economy.


At the centre of the historic events of his time

Marx worked on "Capital" for forty years-from 1843 until the last day of his life. Was this conscientious and long drawn-out work necessary ? Engels gave the answer to this question : "In all these scientific investigations which cover such a wide field and such a mass of material, it is only at all possible to achieve something tangible by studying the subject for many years. Individual aspects which are new and correct can be discovered more easily; but the grasping and interpretation of it in a new manner is only possible after an exhaustive investigation. Otherwise, books such as "Capital" would be far more numerous."[1] This truly titanic task was not easy for Marx. The cry of a soul in torment is evident in the profoundly moving letter to Sigfrid Meyer : "Well, why didn't I answer you ? Because I was constantly hovering at the edge of the grave. Hence I had to make use of every moment when I was able to work to complete my book, to which I have sacrificed health, happiness, and family. I trust that this explanation needs no supplementation. I laugh at the so-called 'practical men' with their wisdom. If one chose to be an ox, one could of course turn one's back on the sufferings of mankind and look after one's own skin. But I should have really regarded myself as unpractical if I had pegged out without completely finishing my book, at least in manuscript."[2]

History has shown that Marx was right. Who still recalls today the German economist Professor Wilhelm Roscher who made a name for himself in Marx's day? He is known only to specialists .in the history of political economy. Marx said that Roscher was not honest" in what he wrote but "always with an eye to the prejudices and the interests of his paymasters! A stone-breaker is respectable compared with such rabble."[3] Nobody remembers Roscher today, nobody reads his books any longer. Marx's name, however, is known to everybody and "Capital." has become a handbook for a million people. This is because Marx served a just cause. It was precisely in this that Marx regarded his work as 'practical' and he linked his destiny with the cause of the working-class. Through this, he achieved immortality.

"Capital" is a star with a radiance of its own. Why is "Capital" immortal? Why do the people of today need it as much as those of a century ago?

In "Capital", not only are those problems solved which appeared on the stage of history a hundred years ago, but there are also the answers to many questions which affect the people of today. And the most important and most valuable aspect of "Capital" is that it sets out the method by which these problems can be solved.

In the 19th century, bourgeois economists made no mention at all of "Capital" and ignored the economic theory worked out by Marx. In the 20th century, this is impossible. Emile James, the French bourgeois economist, writes that "Never before has so much attention been devoted to the works of Karl Marx as in our epoch and not only in Soviet Russia but also in the countries of the West."[4] Our century is marked by innumerable attempts of bourgeois economists and revisionists of all shades to refute Marxism or to rob it of its revolutionary content.

Bourgeois economists and revisionists are trying to prove that capitalism in the 20th century has not developed in the way predicted in Marx's economic theory. For instance, G. D. H. Cole, the well-known Labour ideologist, asserts that Marx's views have not been confirmed by the subsequent course of events,[5] that Marx was mistaken in his analysis of the basic trends in the development of capitalism. G. Myrdal, the Swedish bourgeois economist, writes that "the prognosis of the future development of capitalist society which Marx formulated a hundred years ago has naturally proved totally untenable ".[6] These assertions are completely refuted by the course of historical development itself and also by the Marxist analysis of the economic development of capitalism in the 20th century, especially by Lenin's theory of imperialism. Lenin showed that imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, is the further development of the basic tendencies of capitalism. He emphasized the fact that the theory of imperialism is a direct conclusion from the analysis of the capitalist mode of production worked out by Marx.[7] In the Programme of the CPSU in which the phenomena now apparent in reality are generalized, it is said that "The development of world capitalism has fully confirmed ... the Marxist-Leninist analysis of capitalism and of imperialism as its highest stage."[8]

In "Capital", Marx revealed the fundamental and most profound 'tendencies in the development of the capitalist mode of production. He met in full the conditions which he himself had set for political economy: "Only by putting the conflicting facts and the real contradictions which form the hidden background to them in place of the conflicting dogmas, can political economy be changed into a positive Science."[9] In "Capital", Marx characterized capitalism so correctly and described its tendencies of development so thoroughly that Academician E. Varga could justly write that "In its social structure, modern capitalism in the highly developed countries recalls much more the capitalist society consisting exclusively of two classes-bourgeoisie and proletariat on whose assumed existence. Marx based his theoretical analysis than the actual capitalist society which existed during Marx's lifetime."[10]

In "Capital", Marx described the capitalist mode of production as a living whole, as an historically determined and thus historically transient stage of development of human society. He systematically compared capitalism both with pre-capitalist formations and also with the coming communist mode of production. On the one hand, this method enabled Marx to gain a more profound understanding of the specific nature of capitalist society and, on the other, to reveal its tendencies of development, i.e., to prove also that the socialist revolution is inevitable. In "Capital", Marx did not provide any detailed picture of future society and, indeed, this was impossible for him. "This book will be a great disappointment to many readers", wrote Engels. "... many may have imagined ... that here they would learn what it would actually be like in the communist Thousand-Year Community . , . Marx is and remains the same revolutionary that he always was . But as to what will be after the social transformation-he gives us only very obscure hints about this."[11]

Nevertheless, Marx often made remarks about communism and described a series of its basic features. These comments are of especially great interest in our epoch in which the building of communist society has become the immediate practical task of the Soviet people.

If we sum up what Marx has to say about communism in the four volumes of "Capital" and in "Grundrisse", a reasonably harmonious and complete picture is obtained of communist society as Marx saw it.

In "Capital", Marx demonstrated that it is the capitalist mode of production itself which produces the material conditions that make its downfall inevitable. In capitalism, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production develops as a contradiction between the social character of production and the .private form of appropriation. "The contradiction of the capitalist mode of production, however, lies precisely in its tendency towards an absolute development of the productive forces, which continually come into conflict with the specific conditions of production in which capital moves, and alone can move."[12]

The basic contradiction of capitalism and the forms in which it unavoidably appears-the anarchy of social production and of the periodic economic crises-set limits to the development of the productive forces within capitalist relations of production. "It is for this reason that the capitalist mode of production meets with barriers at a certain expanded stage of production which, if viewed from the other premise, would reversely have been altogether inadequate. It comes to a standstill at a point fixed by the production and realization of profit., and not the satisfaction of requirements."[13]

Marx showed that the productive forces developing in the bosom of capitalism are irreconcilable with capitalist relations of production. The growing concentration and centralization of production and of capital increasingly separated the conditions of social production from the direct producers. Joint-stock companies appeared, regarding which Marx wrote that "This result of the ultimate development of capitalist production is a necessary transitional phase towards the reconversion of capital into the property of producers, although no longer as the private property of the individual producers, but rather as the property of associated producers, as outright social property."[14] In a supplement to the third volume of "Capital", Engels described the new forms of industrial enterprises which had developed in the meantime: cartels, trusts and international cartels monopolizing entire branches of industry, Engels pointed out that in this way "...the road has been paved, most gratifyingly, for future expropriation by the whole of society, the nation."[15] Marx wrote that "The contradiction between the general social power into which capital develops, on the one hand, and the private power of individual capitalists over these social conditions of production, on the other, becomes ever more irreconcilable, and yet contains the solution of the problem, because it implies at the same time the transformation of conditions of production into general, common, social conditions."[16]

The transition from capitalism to communism does not take place by itself. For this, the working-class must break the dominance of the capitalist class in a revolutionary manner and seize political power by establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The thesis that the socialist, proletarian revolution is necessary to replace the capitalist by a communist mode of production is the most important conclusion to be drawn from the economic theory of Marx. In this connection, Marx and Engels pointed out that the "... revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means . " but they did not forget to add that they scarcely expected ". . . the ruling

142classes to submit, without a 'pro-slavery rebellion', to this peaceful and legal revolution."[17]

The antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat is generated by the basic contradiction of capitalism. Marx stated that "It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse."[18] At the same time, there develops "... with the accumulation of capital, the class-struggle, and, therefore, the class-consciousness of the workingmen ..."[19]

He remarked that the process of capitalist accumulation affects the worker negatively in three ways:-

" 1) The perpetuation of the means of production as property alien to him, as capital, perpetuates his condition as wage-worker and hence his fate of always having to work part of his labour-time for a third person for nothing. 2) The extension of these means of production, alias accumulation of capital, increases the extent and the size of the classes who live on the surplus labour of the worker; it worsens his position relatively by augmenting the relative wealth of the capitalist and his co-partners, by further increasing his relative surplus labour through the division of labour, etc., and reduces that part of the gross product which is used to pay wages; finally, since the conditions of labour confront the individual worker in an ever more gigantic form and increasingly as social forces, the chance of his taking possession of them himself as is the case in small-scale industry, disappears."[20] The working-class must therefore carry out the social revolution to free itself and it k; this which constitutes its historical mission. Marx stressed that "... when the working-class comes into power, as inevitably it must,[21] . . . the evil of bourgeois society ..." cannot be remedied "... by bank 'conversions' or the establishment of a rational 'monetary system'.. ."[22]

The conclusion that the downfall of the capitalist mode of production is inevitable was expressed by Marx in the following words: "Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital ... grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation, but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished, along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated."[23]

143

As a. result of the socialist revolution, the means of production are converted into social property, thus establishing the unity of the producers and the conditions of production. The conditions of production lose their alienated form for the working people. The "ruling principle" of communist society is "... the full and free development of every individual …"[24]

Human society becomes consciously transformed. "Free individuality, based on universal development of individuals and the subordination of their common, social productivity as their social property"[25] - this is how Marx in "Grundrisse" described the development of personality in communism.

And, in the first volume of "Capital", Marx characterized communist society as follows: "Let us now picture to ourselves … a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community ... The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of. the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution."[26]

Marx is referring here to socialism, the first phase of development of communist society. In this phase, it is a question of "From each according to his ability. to each according to his work!" Marx provides a detailed description of the concept of the two phases of communist society in, the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" of 1875.[27]

Under communist relations of production, no limits are set for the development of .the productive forces since in this case social production "is ... regulated immediately, by the wants of society, and controlled by it ..."[28] The findings of science and technology can be applied without restriction both in industry and in agriculture. In communist society, machines are a means of saving social labour and of making work easier. Marx writes that

144" The use of machinery for the exclusive purpose, of cheapening the product, is limited in this way, that less labour must be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by the employment of that machinery."[29] The criterion of whether there is an increase in labour productivity and consequently of whether the machines can be used or not consists here in the reduction of the quantum of total labour associated with the product-unit. For the capitalist, this criterion is unacceptable since he does not pay for the labour used but for the value of the labour-power used. This is why for him the use of machines is limited by the difference between the value of the machines and the value of the labour-power which they replace. "Hence in a communistic society", notes Marx, "there would be a very different scope for the employment of machinery than there can be in a bourgeois society ".[30]

In communist society, "a rational agriculture" will be possible for the first time, "... a common, all-embracing and far-sighted control of the production .of raw materials" as Marx stresses, "the capitalist system works against a rational agriculture ..."[31] Above all, the socialist revolution will eliminate private ownership of land and, with it, absolute land-rent, i.e., the basis of existence of the parasitic class of landowners. "From the standpoint of a higher economic form of society; private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another."[32] As early as 1851, Marx told Engels that in the course of his studies he had become increasingly more certain that "the reform of agriculture, i.e., also of the ownership nonsense based on it, is the alpha and omega of the coming transformation. Without this, old Malthus is still right."[33]

Capitalism divorces industry from agriculture. "It is in the nature of capitalist production that it develops industry more rapidly than agriculture. This is not owing to the nature of the land, but to the fact that, in order to be exploited really in accordance with its nature, land requires different social relations."[34] It is only communist society which will establish a new and superior synthesis by uniting agriculture and industry.[35]

The spontaneous action of the law of value will be replaced by reasoned economic planning on the basis of objective economic laws. "... That same bourgeois mind denounces with equal vigour every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the process of production" in capitalist society "as an inroad upon such sacred things as the right of property, freedom and unrestricted play for the bent of the individual capitalist ".[36] Under conditions of social ownership, social control will be an objective necessity. In communism, the social forces would bring "the productive process under their joint control" as a law "understood and hence controlled by their common mind".[37]

One of the most important functions of communist society in the reproduction process consists in the distribution of social labour in a conscious manner among the various branches of production on the basis of collective requirements. "It is only where production is under the actual, predetermining control of society that the latter establishes a relation between the volume of social labour-time applied in producing definite articles, and the volume of the social want to be satisfied by these articles."[38] The ability to establish this relation presupposes a fully developed procedure for calculating how social labour is expended. Marx notes that book-keeping is "more necessary in collective production than in capitalist production".[39] In communist society, writes Marx, "... the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever."[40][41]

In "Grundrisse", Marx also formulates his famous law by the economy of time, which plays an especially important role in communist society.

"Assuming collective production, the determination of time naturally remains important. The less time society needs for producing wheat, livestock, etc., the more time it gains for other production, material or intellectual. As with a single individual, the universality of its development, its pleasure and its activities depends on the saving of time. Society must also divide up its time usefully in order to attain a production appropriate to its requirements as a whole; as the individual person must divide up his time correctly in order to acquire knowledge in balanced proportions or to satisfy the requirements he has to meet in his activities. Economy of time and the planned distribution of labour-time among the various branches of production thus remains the first economic law on the basis of collective production. It will even become a law on a much higher level. This is, however, considerably different from the measurement of exchange-value {labour or labour-products) by labour-time."[42]

In communist society, labour will be uniformly distributed among all the members of society, i.e., "generalisation of labour"[43] will prevail. Through this alone there will be a shortening of the working day and an increase in leisure-time. "Uniformly distributed, all would have ... more time for unproductive labour and leisure."[44]

Even in communism, material production remains a natural necessity. For this reason and as in the past, a part of the working day must be devoted to productive labour in the sphere of material production.

The limit of labour-time will be determined by the fact that expanded reproduction will be carried on, this being associated with a continuous increase in the needs of people. This is why surplus-labour will continue to exist in communism, too. "Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain ... A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction ..."[45] Marx states that the insurance fund, the accumulation fund and the fund for the support of those unable to work form a part of the surplus-product which must still continue to exist "even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production."[46] But in communism "all labour to support those who do not work would cease."[47] Surplus-labour is a necessary part of productive labour in communism. "Assuming, however, that there is no capital", writes Marx in "Theories of Surplus-Value", "and that the worker appropriated his surplus-labour himself, the excess of value which he produces above the excess of value which he consumes. Of this labour, it could only be said that it is truly productive, i.e., that it creates new value."[48]

When the capitalist mode of production is abolished, the surplus-value which in capitalism is the main criterion of productive, labour is also eliminated. But the elimination of surplus-value does not mean that surplus-labour and surplus-product also disappear. Marx says about this that "Although all surplus-value takes the form of surplus product, surplus product as such does not represent surplus-value!"[49]

In communism, the boundary between necessary and surplus labour is conditional to a certain extent because surplus labour is just as necessary, for the working people of a communist society, as necessary labour. For this reason, in necessary labour carried out in the communist mode of production, Marx also includes "the labour of forming a fund for reserve and accumulation''[50], i.e., surplus labour.

As Marx notes, in communism necessary labour would also increase "because the notion of `means of subsistence' would considerably expand, and the labourer would lay claim to an altogether different standard of life."[51] The "volume of consumption" would be determined on the one hand "by the existing productivity of society" and, on the other, by that which "the full development of the individuality requires."[52]

Marx also investigates the most important aspects of the process of reproduction in communist society. The objective laws of capitalist expanded reproduction, which arise "from the material character of the particular labour-process, not from its social form"[53], are also valid for the communist mode of production. In communism, the fundamental division of production into two departments remains, i.e., the production of means of production and the production of means of consumption. Thus the basic proportions also continue to exist within these departments and between them. For communist production, "these products of department I would evidently just as regularly be redistributed as means of production to the various branches of this department, for purposes of reproduction, one portion remaining directly in that sphere of production from which it emerged as a product, another passing over to other places of production, thereby giving rise to a constant to-and-fro movement between the various places of production in this department."[54] Marx speaks here only of the movement within department I (production of means of production) but it is obvious that in communism movements such as these would also take place within department II and between departments I and II.

Marx analyzes the conditions which permit a continuous process of reproduction and shows that as a result of the varying magnitude of the fixed capital which has to be replaced every year in kind a continuous, relative over-production (in other words, the establishment of a permanent reserve-supply) of means of production, raw materials and food is necessary. "This sort of over-production is tantamount to control by society over the material means of its own reproduction. But within capitalist society it is an element of anarchy."[55] "Such surplus is not an evil in itself, but an advantage; however, it is an evil under capitalist production ".[56]

Communism changes the character of labour in material production. The worker becomes a "fully developed individual . . . to whom the different social functions he performs are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers".[57] Labour itself will be placed under the common control of the producers, it will become rational and truly free labour. Nevertheless, in material production, labour remains the realm of necessity. Regarding this, Marx notes that "In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production, just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.

"But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite."[58]

The most important means of shortening the working-day is the raising of labour productivity. "The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more can the working-day be shortened ..."[59] "For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day ... The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed."[60]

Leisure-time, in turn, exerts a considerable influence on the character of labour-time: "... the more the working-day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase."[61] Marx also notes that "... the labour of a man who also has disposable time, must be of a much higher quality than that of the beast of burden."[62]

In "Capital", Marx also commented on how education, family relations and so on will develop on the basis of communist economics. He indicates that in communism "in the case of every child over a given age, productive labour ..." will be combined "with instruction and gymnastics, not only as one of the methods of adding to the efficiency of production, but as the only method of producing fully developed human beings."[63] In the schools of the future, "technical instruction, both theoretical and practical"[64] will be given the importance it deserves.

Marx also recalls that "... modern industry, by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production, outside the domestic sphere, to women, to young persons, and to children of both sexes, creates a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and of the relations between the sexes."[65] If in capitalism the inclusion of people in the sphere of social production without regard to age or sex is "a pestiferous source of corruption and slavery", in communism it must "... become a source of humane development …"[66]

*

In a letter to W. Sombart, written shortly before his death, Engels gave a quite remarkable description of Marxist theory. He wrote that "this way of viewing things is not a doctrine but a method. It does not provide ready-made dogmas, but criteria for further research and the method for this research."[67] The revolutionary theory of Marx, Engels and Lenin is for us a real "guide to action" in the great work of building a communist society.


Footnotes

[1] F. Engels, letter to Kautsky of 18 September 1883, in: K. Marx/F. Engels, Briefe uber "Das Kapital", Werke, Bd. 36, p. 279 f.

[2] K. Marx, letter to Meyer of 30. April 1867, in: Marx/Engels, Selected Correspondence, 1. c., p. 224.

[3] K. Marx, letter to Lassalle of 16 June 1662, in: K. Marx/F. Engels, Werke, Bd. 30, p. 628.

[4] E. James, [History of 20th Century Economic Thought], Moscow 1959, p. 538.

[5] G. D. H. Cole, [Capitalism in the Modern World], Moscow1958, P. 27

[6] G. Myrdal, [An International Economy] Moscow 1958, p. 486

[7] Cf. V.I.Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1970.

[8] Programm and Statut der Kommunistiscben Partei der Sowjetunion, 1. c.. p. 6 f.

[9] K. Marx, letter to Engels of 40 October 1868, in: K, Marx/E. Engels, Werke, Pd. 32. p. 181.

[10] E. Varga, Der Kapitalismus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, Verlag Die Wirtschaft, Berlin 1962, p. 62.

[11] F. Engels. review of the first volume of "Capital" for the " Dusseldorfer Zeitung ", l. c., p. 216.

[12] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, I. c., p. 233.

[13] Ibid., p. 253.

[14] Ibid., p. 428.

[15] ibid., p. 42.9.

[16] Ibid., p. 259.

[17] F. Engels, Preface to the English edition of the first volume of '' Capital", I. c., p

[18] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 643.

[19] Ibid., p. 653.

[20] K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part III, 1. c., p. 35213.

[21] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 488.

[22] K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Íkonomie, l. c., p. 53.

[23] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1. c., p. 763.

[24] Ibid.. p. 592.

[25] K. Marx. Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Íkonomie. 1. c.. p. 7-5.

[26] K. Marx. Capitol. 1. 1. c.. 78.'7;9,

[27] Cf. K. Mars. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Lawrence & Wishart, Landon (year unknown).

[28] K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value. Part 1. c., 116.

[29] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, 1. c., p. 392.

[30] Ibid., p. 393, footnote 1.

[31] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 115.

[32] Ibid., p. 757.

[33] K. Marx, letter to Engels of 14 August 1851. in: K. MarxIF. Engels, Werke: Bd. 27, p. 314.

[34] K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part III, 1. c., p. 300,'301.

[35] Cf. K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1., I. c., p. 505.

[36] Ibid., p. 356.

[37] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 252.

[38] Ibid., p. 184.

[39] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, l. c., p. 135.

[40]

[41] 40/41 K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 839.

[42] K. Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Íkonomie, 1. c,, p. 89.

[43] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 530.

[44] K. Marx, Theorien uber den Mehrwert, Tell, I. e., p. 18t.

[45] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1. c., p. 799.

[46] Ibid., p. 326.

[47] Ibid.

[48] K. Marx, Theorien uber den Mehrwert, 1. Tell, I. c., p. 116.

[49] K. Marx, Theories of-Surplus-Value, Part III, 1. c., p. 370.

[50] Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 530.

[51] Ibid

[52] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 854.

[53] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. II, 1. e., p. 858.

[54] Ibid., p. 424/425.

[55] Ibid., p. 469.

[56] 1 bid ..468.

[57] Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 488.

[58] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 799.

[59] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 530.

[60] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, 1. c., p. 799.

[61] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 530.

[62] K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part III, 1. c., p. 257.

[63] K. Marx, Capital, Vol. I, 1. c., p. 414.

[64] Ibid., p. 488.

[65] Ibid., p. 489/490.

[66] Ibid., p. 490.

[67] F. Engels, letter to W. Sombart of 11 March 1895, in: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1970, p. 506.