经管之家App
让优质教育人人可得
立即打开
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-30 10:36:03编辑过]
Editor's Introduction(by David M. Hart)
There can be no doubting the significance of Marx's influence on both economic theory in the late 19th century and on the creation of Marxist states in the 20th century. From the time of the emergence of modern socialism in the 1840s, free market economists have criticised socialist theory and it is thus useful to place that criticism in its intellectual context, namely beside the main work of one of its leading theorists, Karl Marx.……
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-18 20:37:31编辑过]
(Continuing)
In 1848, when Europe was wracked by a series of revolutions in which both liberals and socialists participated and which both lost out to the forces of conservative monarchism or Bonapartism, John Stuart Mill published his Principles of Political Economy. The chapter on Property shows how important Mill thought it was to confront the socialist challenge to classical liberal economic theory.
In hindsight it might appear that Mill was too accommodating to socialist criticism, but I would argue that in fact he offered a reasonable framework for comparing the two systems of thought, which the events of the late 20th century have finally brought to a conclusion which was not possible in his lifetime.
Mill states in Book II Chapter I "Of Property" that a fair comparison of the free market and socialism would compare both the ideal of liberalism with that of socialism, as well as the practice of liberalism versus the practice of socialism. In 1848 the ideals of both were becoming better known (and there were some aspects of the ideal of socialism which Mill found intriguing) but the practice of each was still not conclusive.
Mill correctly observed that in 1848 no European society had yet created a society fully based upon private property and free exchange and any future socialist experiment on a state-wide basis was many decades in the future. After the experiments in Marxist central planning with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the Chinese Communists in 1949, and numerous other Marxist states in the post-1945 period, there can be no doubt that the reservations Mill had about the practicality of fully-functioning socialism were completely borne out by historical events. What Mill could never have imagined, the slaughter of tens of millions of people in an effort to make socialism work, has ended for good any argument concerning the Marxist form of socialism.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-19 17:04:41编辑过]
(Continuing)
The publication of the third volume was delayed still longer. When the second German edition of volume II appeared, in July, 1893, Engels was still working on volume [begin p.8]III. It was not until October, 1894, that the first German edition of volume III was published, in two separate parts, containing the subject matter of what had been originally planned as Book III of volume II, and treating of The Capitalist Process of Production as a whole.
The reasons for the delay in the publication of volumes II and III, and the difficulties encountered in solving the problem of elaborating the copious notes of Marx into a finished and connected presentation of his theories, have been fully explained by Engels in his various prefaces to these two volumes. His great modesty led him to belittle his own share in this fundamental work. As a matter of fact, a large portion of the contents of Capital is as much a creation of Engels as though he had written it independently of Marx.
Engels intended to issue the contents of the manuscripts for Book IV, originally planned as volume III, in the form of a fourth volume of Capital. But on the 6th of August, 1895, less than one year after the publication of volume III, he followed his co-worker into the grave, still leaving this work incompleted.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-19 17:05:10编辑过]
(Continuing)
The publication of the third volume was delayed still longer. When the second German edition of volume II appeared, in July, 1893, Engels was still working on volume [begin p.8]III. It was not until October, 1894, that the first German edition of volume III was published, in two separate parts, containing the subject matter of what had been originally planned as Book III of volume II, and treating of The Capitalist Process of Production as a whole.
The reasons for the delay in the publication of volumes II and III, and the difficulties encountered in solving the problem of elaborating the copious notes of Marx into a finished and connected presentation of his theories, have been fully explained by Engels in his various prefaces to these two volumes. His great modesty led him to belittle his own share in this fundamental work. As a matter of fact, a large portion of the contents of Capital is as much a creation of Engels as though he had written it independently of Marx.
Engels intended to issue the contents of the manuscripts for Book IV, originally planned as volume III, in the form of a fourth volume of Capital. But on the 6th of August, 1895, less than one year after the publication of volume III, he followed his co-worker into the grave, still leaving this work incompleted.
However, some years previous to his demise, and in anticipation of such a eventuality, he had appointed Karl Kautsky, the editor of Die Neue Zeit, the scientific organ of the German Socialist Party, as his successor and familiarized him personally with the subject matter intended for volume IV of this work. The material proved to be so voluminous, that Kautsky, instead of making a fourth volume of Capital out of it, abandoned the original plan and issued his elaboration as a separate work in three volumes under the title Theories of Surplus-value.
The first English translation of the first volume of Capital was edited by Engels and published in 1886. Marx had in the meantime made some changes in the text of the second [begin p.9]German edition and of the French translation, both of which appeared in 1873, and he had intended to superintend personally the edition of an English version. But the state of his health interfered with this plan. Engels utilised his notes and the text of the French edition of 1873 in the preparation of a third German edition, and this served as a basis for the first edition of the English translation.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-19 17:06:06编辑过]
PREFACE
by Friedrich Engels
It was no easy task to prepare the second volume of "CAPITAL" for the printer in such a way
that it should make a connected and complete work and represent exclusively the ideas of its
author, not of its publisher. The great number of available manuscripts, and their fragmentary
character, added to the difficulties of this task. At best one single manuscript (No. 4) had been
revised throughout and made ready for the printer. And while it treated its subject-matter fully,
the greater part had become obsolete through subsequent revision. The bulk of the material was
not polished as to language, even if the subject-matter was for the greater part fully worked out.
The language was that in which Marx used to make his outlines, that is to say his style was
careless, full of colloquial, often rough and humorous, expressions and phrases, interspersed
with English and French technical terms, or with whole sentences or pages of English. The
thoughts were jotted down as they developed in the brain of the author. Some parts of the
argument would be fully treated, others of equal importance only indicated. The material to be
used for the illustration of facts would be collected, but barely arranged, much less worked out.
At the conclusion of the chapters there would be only a few incoherent sentences as mile-stones
of the incomplete deductions, showing the haste of the author in passing on to the next chapter.
And finally, there was the well-known handwriting which Marx himself was sometimes unable
to decipher.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-4-20 20:56:09编辑过]
PREFACE
by Friedrich Engels
It was no easy task to prepare the second volume of "CAPITAL" for the printer in such a way
that it should make a connected and complete work and represent exclusively the ideas of its
author, not of its publisher. The great number of available manuscripts, and their fragmentary
character, added to the difficulties of this task. At best one single manuscript (No. 4) had been
revised throughout and made ready for the printer. And while it treated its subject-matter fully,
the greater part had become obsolete through subsequent revision. The bulk of the material was
not polished as to language, even if the subject-matter was for the greater part fully worked out.
The language was that in which Marx used to make his outlines, that is to say his style was
careless, full of colloquial, often rough and humorous, expressions and phrases, interspersed
with English and French technical terms, or with whole sentences or pages of English. The
thoughts were jotted down as they developed in the brain of the author. Some parts of the
argument would be fully treated, others of equal importance only indicated. The material to be
used for the illustration of facts would be collected, but barely arranged, much less worked out.
At the conclusion of the chapters there would be only a few incoherent sentences as mile-stones
of the incomplete deductions, showing the haste of the author in passing on to the next chapter.
And finally, there was the well-known handwriting which Marx himself was sometimes unable
to decipher.
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
