I

[I.1.]
I Re p.
XXXVI
[
Often the above reference by Marx is described as a link to missing pages in Marx's Notebook 2. However, following this link takes us quite logically to a later page in this MS on Adam Smith. It may also be that Marx intended this to go to one page earlier, i.e. XXXV, the start of the quotes from Adam Smith, due to his mix up in page numbering around page XXII-XXV --Ed/GT].

The subjective essence of private property , private property as activity for itself, as subject, as person, is labour. Therefore it is evident that only the political economy which acknowledged labour as its principle--Adam Smith--and which therefore no longer regarded private property as a mere condition external to man--that it is this political economy which has to be viewed on the one hand as a product of the real energy and the real movement of private property (it is a movement of private property become independent for itself in consciousness--the modern industry as Self)--as a product of modern industry--and on the other hand, as a force which has quickened and glorified the energy and development of modern industry and made it a power in the realm of consciousness.

To this enlightened political economy, which has discovered--within private property--the subjective essence of wealth, the adherents of the monetary and mercantile system, who look upon private property only as an objective substance confronting men, appear therefore as fetish-worshipers, as Catholics. Engels was therefore right to call Adam Smith the Luther of Political Economy [in Engels 1843 Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy]. Just as Luther recognised religion--faith--as the substance of the external world and as a consequence stood opposed to Catholic paganism--just as he superseded external religiosity by making religiosity the inner substance of man--just as he negated the priests outside the layman because he transplanted the priest into laymen's hearts, just so with wealth: wealth as something outside man and independent of him, and therefore as something to be maintained and asserted only in an external fashion, is abolished; that is, this external, mindless objectivity of wealth is abolished, with private property being incorporated in man himself and with man himself being recognised as its essence. But as a result man is brought within the orbit of private property, just as with Luther he is brought within the orbit of religion. Under the semblance of recognising man, the political economy whose principle is labour rather carries to its logical conclusion the denial of man, since man himself no longer stands in an external relation of tension to the external substance of private property, but has himself become this tense essence of private property. What was previously being external to oneself--man's actual externalisation has merely become the act of externalising--the process of alienating.
[II.1.]

[I.2.]
This political economy therefore begins by seeming to acknowledge man, his independence, spontaneity, etc.; since, locating private property in man's own being, it can no longer be conditioned by the local, national or other characteristics of private property as of something existing outside itself. This political economy, consequently, displays a cosmopolitan, universal energy which overthrows every limitation and bond so as to set itself up instead as the sole politics, the sole universality, the sole limit and sole bond. Hence it must throw aside this hypocrisy in the course of its further development and come out in its complete cynicism. And this it does--without troubling its head for one moment over all the apparent contradictions in which it becomes involved as a result of this theory--by developing the idea of labour much more one-sidedly, and therefore more sharply and more logically, as the sole essence of wealth; by proving the implications of this theory to be anti-human in character, in contrast to the other, original approach. Finally, by dealing the death-blow to rent--that last, individual, natural mode of private property and source of wealth existing independently of the movement of labour, that expression of feudal property, an expression which has already become wholly economic in character and therefore incapable of resisting political economy. (The Ricardo school.) There is not merely a relative growth in the cynicism of political economy from Smith through Say to Ricardo, Mill, etc., inasmuch as the implications of industry appear more developed and more contradictory in the eyes of the latter; these later economists also advance in a positive sense constantly and consciously further than their predecessors in their estrangement from man. They do so, however; only because their science develops more logically and more truly. Since they make private property in its active form the subject, thereby making man as a non-being [Unwesen] the essence [Wesen], the contradiction in reality corresponds entirely to the contradictory essence which they have accepted as their principle. For from refuting it, the ruptured
[II.2.]



Send comments to: Lemmaesthetics@freeuk.com, The Hypertext Manuscripts of Karl Marx, Paris 1844, Copyright Gary Tedman 2001-03