is a new version as of March 2007. The older version should still
be available at the same web address. MS 1 has been redesigned and
updated (04/02). You may access more maps/diagrams by clicking on
the transport arrows when on the first map page, in the top navbar.
A good Flash animation of the pagination sequence is now onsite
(thanks to Martin Beveridge). Physical prints are no longer available
but printing help and an image of a printout can be made available.
third MS is now more-or-less complete, except for the pages that
contain Marx's excerpts from Hegel's "Phenomenology".
Further Notes and Speculations
on the EPM 1844
recap: there are four Paris manuscripts by Marx made up of two notebooks
plus another folio of continuous text that is called the second
manuscript. The fourth manuscript (so far unavailable in English)
is a part of the third notebook, it contains exerpts from Hegel
on absolute knowledge where he has refuted Kant's idea that it is
impossible to have definite knowledge.
the First MS the inserted section heading 'Estranged Labour' is
text that in fact grows out of a logical progression of economic
concepts developed in the core, but which is here separated. The
impression this leaves is that Marx begins a fresh subject that
is now likely to be interpreted from a Hegelian or Feuerbachian
'spiritual' point of view, rather than developing the concept of
alienation directly from out of the discussion of the three major
economic categories of Adam Smith.
first notebook contains a sewn together 'core' set of pages embedded
in quotations from other authors on political economy and further
elaboration by Marx, and a bibliography was also added by Marx.
It contains text mainly dealing with Adam Smith and Economics but
its outer sheets are philosophical and concerned with alienation,
in other words the effect on Philosophy of Economic activity.
MONEY or AFFIRMATION? THE PROBLEM OF THE THIRD MANUSCIPT
example, category headings are inserted that were not used by the
author, such as 'The Power of Money'. This is often inserted at
the top of Marx's page XLI, however this
text appears to continue the theme of the affirmation of human
powers from earlier, his page XXXIV (column 2) which breaks
off. The insertion of these headings as categories splits up the
text and muddles the inner logic of the manuscripts.
this, the third manuscript, the pages are divided mainly into two
columns, which is not disclosed in other extant publications. These
publications usually say they have columns not how the text fits
the columns, and invariably place all the text from the entire MS
(landscape) page into one (portrait) page column without disclosing
where Marx made the division.
seems possible that the Hegel manuscript works in a similar way
in relation to the third notebook as the core (or first) manuscript
does to the first notebook: absolute knowledge is the rational kernel
of the Hegelian dialectic, its outer sheets deal with Philosophy
but also touch on Economics insofar as it encroaches on Philosophy.
So we have two cores or kernels, as it were, with two husks. The
second manuscript appears to be a link between the two notebooks,
first and third, Economics and Philosophy, and extrapolates what
is found in them. Both "cores" are contained by "husks", but each
core furnishes the husk of the other. Economics produces the constraint
upon Philosophy, Philosophy the contraint upon Economics. This takes
place in theory (political economic theory and philosophical theory)
and in practice (the reproduction of the economic base and the ideological
superstructure). Articulating both in relation to each other, as
Marx does, reveals this mutual binding as full of contradictions.
some editions of the EPM a note says that a page reference by Marx
early on in the third MS (p.III) refers
back to a lost page of the second MS. I am now doubtful about this
as it seems to refer to the second column in the page in the third
MS where there is a reference to Proudhon and the same theme (XXXIX).
In any case, you can now try this for yourself. If this is so, then
it shows Marx planned the text beforehand, something most commentators