Marx On Tech

Euro. J.
History of Economic Thought 17:5 12231251 December 2010
Marx on technical change in the critical

edition
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015
Regina Roth
1. Introduction
Modern industry never looks upon and treats the existing form of a
process as final, Karl Marx observed in Volume 1 of Capital, concluding:
The technical basis of that industry therefore is revolutionary (Marx
[1867] 1983: 399). Writing the draft for a resolution of the International
Working Mens Association (IWMA) in August 1868, he added that the
development of machinery creates the material conditions necessary for
the superseding of the wages system by a truly social system of production.1
These quotes throw some light on the fundamental importance that Marx
attributed to technical change in his analysis of capitalist production.
Asking for the sources of this position, we find that it was a result of a longterm examination of machinery by Marx. To trace back these sources we
should look at more than only Marxs published works because they do not
provide a very broad foundation from which to judge his work. As is
generally known, Marx himself only published the first volume of Capital in
1867, amended twice in the second and French editions between 1872 and
1875. Further publication of additional volumes became the task of
Address for correspondence
Regina Roth, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Marx
Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Jaegerstrasse 22/23, Berlin D-10117, Germany;
e-mail: roth@bbaw.de
A first draft of this paper was presented at the ESHET conference in Thessaloniki in
April 2009.
1 Resolution of the General Council of IWMA, proposed by Marx on 11 August,
1868 (Marx and Engels [186771] 2009: 587). This was the second proposition,
the first stating a growing exploitation of working people through modern
industry. The IWMA had put the influence of machinery in the hands of
capitalists on the agenda of the congress in Brussels in September 1868. (See
below section 6)
The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
ISSN 0967-2567 print/ISSN 1469-5936 online 2010 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2010.522239
Regina Roth
Frederick Engels, who edited Marxs papers to compile a second volume in

1885 and a third volume in 1894. To understand Marxs views on technical
change, his whole legacy, which is also comprised of numerous drafts,
excerpts, letters, and so forth, must be considered.
In this article I would first like to give an overview of the complete edition
of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the MarxEngelsGesamtausgabe (MEGA), of its organisation and its structure. Then Marx
and his working method shall come into view as it is present in the newly
published volumes of this edition, which mainly cover Books 2 and 3 of
Capital. Marx turns out to be someone who often revised what he wrote
because he was looking for new sources and solutions to deal with the
problems of his analysis. The next two sections will address Marxs technical
studies in his excerpts from the 1840s to the 1870s and how they were used
in his manuscripts, focusing more on Marxs method of working than on
his economic theory in its diverse aspects. Before some concluding remarks
a short excursion into politics may be appropriate, looking at the
discussions which took place in 1868 on the effects of machinery in the
hands of capitalist within the IWMA. These debates were strongly
influenced by Marx and his views on technical change.
2. Marx in the MEGA
To look at Marxs legacy for the development of his thought is much easier
today than it was for Marxs contemporaries due to the continued efforts in
critical editions of his work. The earliest of them was the MEGA. It was
inspired and guided by David Rjazanov who from the 1920s to the mid 1930s
used the newly established MarxEngels Institute in Moscow for this
purpose.2 It was not until the 1960s that this project was revived under the
control of the respective Institutes of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union
and in Germany connected to the Central Committee at the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union; and the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. The
International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam, whose archives
holds most of the original manuscripts, agreed to cooperate. In 1972, a
sample volume was well received by international editors from different
editorial projects, and the first volume appeared in 1975. After 1989, a new
institutional basis had to be created for the edition to be continued.
2 They published seven volumes with works, drafts and articles (from 1844 to
December 1848) and four volumes with correspondence between Marx and
Engels (18441883). Without being numbered a volume of the MEGA, two
additional volumes later appeared (Engels: Anti-Duhring, 1935; Marx: Grundrisse,
1939/41.) Planned were 42 volumes.
1224
Marx on technical change
Five institutions set up the International MarxEngels Foundation (IMES):

The BerlinBrandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the
FriedrichEbert Foundation, the International Institute for Social History
(IISH) in Amsterdam, the Russian State Archive of Social and Political
History (RGASPI) in Moscow, and the Russian Independent Institute of
Social and National Problems (RNI), also in Moscow.3 This politically
independent institution assumed academic responsibility for the project,
with the Institute in Amsterdam in charge first and since 2000 the Berlin
Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Work on the edition is
currently being carried out by the Academy, who also coordinates the work
of several teams of researchers from Germany, Russia, France, the
Netherlands, Denmark, the USA and Japan.4
Back to the material which only these editions brought to light: for
example The German Ideology from 1845, or the Grundrisse of Political Economy
from 1857/58 were published for the first time in the late 1920s and 1940s.5
From the mid-1970s onwards, the MEGA continued with the publication of
unknown material, now called the Second MEGA. The edition presents all
its documents in four sections. The fourth section is completely new and
presents excerpts, notes and marginalia of Marx and Engels, most of them
for the first time. They give more detailed information on the origins and
formation of his ideas, concepts or subjects.6 The third section covers
3 The RNI was disbanded in the late 1990s.
4 For further information on the MEGA, see Hubmann et al (2001) and Rojahn
(1998). Up to 1990 there appeared 14 volumes from the first section, nine
volumes from the second section, eight volumes from the third section and six
volumes from the fourth section, in all 37 volumes (if you number also the parts
of volumes, 43 parts of volumes were published). In 1991 appeared MEGA2 II/
10 and IV/9, in 1992 MEGA2 I/20 and II/4.2. Up to 2010 there appeared four
volumes from the first section, five volumes from the second section, four
volumes from the third section and four volumes from the fourth section. In all
there are now 57 volumes from the planned 114 volumes: 19 volumes from the
planned 32 in the first section, 15 volumes from the planned 15 in the second
section (the last part of Volume 4 will presumably be published in 2011), 12
volumes from planned 35 in the third section and 11 volumes from the planned
32 in the fourth section. (See also the MEGA website http://mega.bbaw.de.)
5 The Grundrisse did not appear within the series of MEGA, but it was prepared by
some of their editors using the material kept in the MarxEngelsLenin Institut,
and it was published in 1939/41. The Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts from
1844 had already appeared in 1932 as MEGA volume I/3, simultaneously with an
edition by S. Landshut and J.P. Mayer; in 1927, a Russian translation of these
notebooks had been published. See Rojahn (1985: 651, footnote 28).
6 For example, the excerpts in the Pariser Hefte from 1844/45 in MEGA2 IV/2 and
IV/3, which are closely intertwined with the EconomicPhilosophical Manuscripts in
MEGA2 I/2. For the Londoner Hefte, see MEGA2 IV/711; already published are
MEGA2 IV/79 (19831991).
1225
Regina Roth
correspondence between both authors and approximately 2000 others, that

is: all the letters received by Marx and Engels again, most of which were
published for the first time.7 In the first section containing works, drafts
and articles from Marx and Engels besides Capital, there is also new
information to be found, especially concerning their journalistic work.
More articles than previously known have been proven written by them.8
Moreover, the edition also is able to place already published material into a
new context as it explores the background in which those texts were
composed in detail for example, (Marx [184344] 1982: 187438; see also
Rojahn 1985).9
The greatest amount of newly edited material is to be found in the
second section of the MEGA, which is dedicated to Marxs work Capital.
Only in the MEGA have all of the different versions been published, drafts
or treatises on single questions, or plans concerning Marxs Critique of
Political Economy. The new material to be found includes the Manuscript
186163 apart from the sections which Marx had written on the Theories of
Surplus Value, or all of the manuscripts that Marx produced for Capital from
1863 until his death in 1883:
. for Book 2: far more than a dozen manuscripts or about 500 pages
(18641881);
. for Book 3: about 10 manuscripts or about 800 pages (18641877/78);
and
. for Books 2 and 3: various manuscripts that Engels produced while
preparing both books for the printers from 1883 to 1894, all in all more
than 100 pages.10
7 Bagaturija (2002).
8 Examples may be found in Marx and Engels ([1854] 1985, [185960] 1984 or
[186467] 1992 MEGA2 I/13, I/18 und I/20), and the same may be expected for
their work as writers and chief editors for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1848/49
which will be presented in MEGA2 I/79. There are also to be found some drafts
or passages for later manuscripts that Marx had written down in notebooks,
often scattered between his excerpts: for example, Randnoten von Marx zu
Duhring in Engels [1878] 1988: 131144 (MEGA2 I/27).
9 Another example are the Theses on Feuerbach, which were published in MEGA2
IV/3 within their original context, a notebook (Marx [184447] 1998: 1921).
The same applies to documents from the IWMA 186771, presented in MEGA2
I/21, which show Marx being part of a greater European network of labour
movement activists, acting more as a mediator than a dictatorial leader of this
international organization (Marx and Engels [186771] 2009: 1150, 1163seqq.).
10 Some preparatory materials on Book 1, (e.g. for an American translation) have
also survived; one also finds plans and outlines for Capital or lists of corrections
for the French and the third edition of Book 1.
1226

Table 1 Economic manuscripts and printed versions in the second section of the
MEGA and in MECW
Manuscripts on the Economics

Grundrisse
Manuscript 186163
Printed parts from the Economics
A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy
Capital, Book I
Manuscript material
Printed versions
Capital, Book 2
Manuscript material
Printed versions
Capital, Book 3
Manuscript material
Printed version
1857/58
186163
MEGA2 II/1
MEGA2 II/3
MECW 2829
MECW 3034
1859
MEGA2 II/2
MECW 29
1863/64
1871/72
1877
1867, 1872,
187275, 1883,
1890
1887
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
MECW 34
MEGA2 II/10
MEGA2 II/9
MECW 35
1865
1867/68
186881
1884/85
1885, 1893
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
II/4.1
II/4.3
II/11
II/12
II/13
MECW 36
1864/65
1867/68
187181
1894
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
MEGA2
II/4.2
II/4.3
II/14
II/15
MECW 37
II/4.1
II/6
II/8
II/58,
Moreover, the MEGA also presents texts not easily available, such as
the several editions of Book and Volume 1 that Marx had published up to
1875.
Some of the earlier manuscripts as presented in the MEGA have
been used as textual basis for the MarxEngels Collected Works (MECW),
namely the full Manuscript 186163 and the so-called Sixth Chapter from
1863/64 on the results of the immediate production process.
To get an overview on where to find what in the MEGA and in MECW see
Table 1.
3. Marx, a master of revision and collector

Let us have a closer look at the recently published manuscripts. There are,
rather hot off the press, the bulk of the drafts for Book 2 (Marx [186881]
1227
Regina Roth
2008b).11 They show, first of all, that Marx was never content with what he
had written: he started five drafts of his first chapter, and added four
fragments to the same subject, each of them with numerous changes within
each text. He tried several ways to deal with his problems, with words as well
as with numerical examples, variables and numbers; for example, when
discussing the reproduction process or the substitution of constant capital
in the section creating means of production on the level of social capital.
To examine the conditions of the turnover of capital he developed
different models to deduce patterns for the turnover of capital over time.
To do this he listed 22 tables to trace the development of this turnover with
varying working and circulation periods.12 In more than one case Marx was
in midst of deciding which concepts and terms to use for his many
categories. Sometimes he seemed to be experimenting with them. In one of
his manuscripts for instance, he reflected on using flussiges Kapital [liquid
capital] or Betriebskapital [business capital] instead of circulating capital
(Marx 1867/68, IISH, MarxEngels-Collection, A 76: 56). At the same time,
the term circulating capital was also used with different meanings: as
superordinate concept of the ever changing form of capital within the
circulation and production process, as the opposite of fixed capital, or as
what the Physiocrats called avances annuelles.13
In contrast to the many beginnings, Marx once wrote a single first draft
for an analysis of expanded reproduction. It is to be found in his last
manuscript, dating from 1877 to 1881 (Marx [186881] 2008b: 790825.)
Here he also wrote down more than one schema to trace the development
of the different departments during the process of reproduction and
accumulation, sometimes identifying new questions he wanted to deal with
(Ibid.; see also 87381.) Sometimes he seemed to be discouraged by
calculation errors and dropped the subject. This may also be seen in the
important part of his last manuscript where Marx developed some
hypotheses and numerical examples in an attempt to describe a process
of accumulation. Often in his manuscripts, at least in those which were not
written with a view to publication, Marx unlike modern economists did
11 Some drafts dating from 1867/68 are still missing. They are currently prepared
to be edited in the forthcoming MEGA-volume II/4.3. I would like to thank CarlErich Vollgraf for having drawn my attention to the following points on Book 2.
12 In one of them he mixed up two models. Engels tried to simplify the
presentation by reducing the number of these tables but he also was not
completely consistent with his version which was criticized in later editions
(Mori 2004).
13 Engels decided to introduce another term, Zirkulationskapital [circulating
capital] for the superordinate concept (Marx [1885] 2008a: 5168). For a
different approach of Marx to the schemata of reproduction, see Mori 2009.
1228
not explicitly state the premises for his numerical examples. This could be
one reason for mistakes in his examples and discontinuing works without
identifying them. (Ibid.: 81014.)14 Only Engels saw that these schemata
could be easily corrected which he did in the printed version in 1885
neither mentioning the mistakes in the original nor hypotheses or
conclusions resulting from these examples. At the end of his example he
just stated that total capital and total surplus value had grown. However, his
example made it possible to interpret Marx as a forerunner of
considerations on balanced growth. (Marx [1885] 2008a: 4747, 5435.)
It also appears to be noteworthy that this last manuscript, covering 77
pages, can hardly be called a draft written for publication, being rather more
a compilation of ideas and arguments written down before they were
forgotten. The text was poorly structured, his first heading being Ch[apter]
III) b[ook] II) probably added in a later phase of writing (Marx [186881]
2008b: 698 and 1609). Instead of using headings Marx often separated his
various thoughts by long horizontal lines. The two other headings found start
with anticipated . . .. They indicate that Marx wanted to add these parts to
other drafts, either already existing or still to be written. The first quarter of
the text resulted from Marxs encounter with the writings of Eugen Duhring
in 1877/78, undertaken to support Engels in writing his Anti-Duhring (Engels
[1878] 1988); it is unclear exactly when he continued to write down the rest
of the manuscript (Marx [186881] 2008b: 1610).
All drafts and material written for Book 2 taken together leave several
questions open: an elaboration of the analysis of expanded reproduction
including the question of growth and crises in capitalist production, an
examination of how constant capital in the section creating the means of
production is substituted, and a consideration of the role of money in the
reproduction process. None of those manuscripts was suitable as a proper
draft for Book 2, a fact that became clear to Engels when he filed the
manuscripts after Marxs death.
More fragmentary still was the state of Book 3. A rough draft of the whole
book existed, dating only from 1864/65, containing severe deficits and gaps
(Marx [1864/65] 1992). Marx thought on paper. This meant that he made
postulates or expressed intentions (e.g. in the beginning of a paragraph or
chapter) that did not prevent him from changing his premises when, in the
course of his examination, he found additional evidence or material
contradicting them. Thus, within his fifth chapter, he began a point on
14 In this case he used a surplus value of 700 instead of 750 as well as a smaller
organic composition for the additional capital, 3 : 1 instead of 4 : 1 (Marx [1868
81] 2008b: 878). For earlier manuscripts with numerical examples, see Marx
([1864/65] 1992: 4107); Marx and Engels ([187195] 2003: 8150).
1229
Regina Roth
credit and fictitious capital and started with the statement that he would
refrain from an analysis of the real movement of the credit system and the
instruments it creates. In the pages to follow he nevertheless gathered
much material with regard to the credit system, including numerous
excerpts that presented only a collection of ideas and facts still awaiting full
interpretation. (Marx [1864/65] 1992: 469; see also 431 and 853) Later on,
he indicated more than once that this same fifth chapter should be the
chapter on credit. (Marx to Engels, 30 April 1868; Marx and Engels [1875
82] 1985: 443) Moreover, he stated in a later manuscript that capitalist
production needed credit for development after having considered in the
French edition of the first volume that credit developed into an immense
social machinery to centralise capital15. (Marx [186881] 2008b: 335;
[187275] 1989: 547; see also Vollgraf 2004: 1316 and 22) These facts later
convinced Engels to change the sentence from Marxs manuscript in that a
detailed analysis lay outside the plan of this work (Marx [1894] 2004: 389;
emphasis added). In other cases, Marx had also modified his plans; for
example, when he included a long chapter on ground rent in his rough
draft 1864/65 instead of dealing with it in a separate book (Marx to
Ferdinand Lassalle, 22 February 1858) or using it in his manuscript as an
illustration for the distinction between value and production price (Marx
[186163] 197682: 1861). This also applies to the world market or share
capital. In 1858 he envisaged dealing with these topics in separate books,
but in his later years he might have thought, as Vollgraf suggests, of
including them at least various considerations on them into Capital
because he might have not enough time to write separate books on them
(Vollgraf 2004: 134). Moreover Marx, as in other manuscripts, wrote down
numerous thoughts, commentaries or even bibliographical data regardless
of whether they were appropriate for the subject he was dealing with or not.
He used horizontal lines or square brackets to separate them from the
surrounding context.
The vast majority of the later manuscripts on Book 3 deal more or less
with problems from the first chapter on the correlation between surplus
value and profit.16 There were two key questions that occupied Marx: the
transition of categories on the level of value to categories on the level of
prices; and the laws that determined the movement of the rate of profit.
Therefore, Marx wrote at least four additional drafts for another beginning
15 In the edition from 1867 Marx still spoke of a specific machine for the
concentration of capital (Marx [1867] 1983: 505; Vollgraf 2004: 22).
16 The manuscripts from 1871 to 1878 are to be found in Marx and Engels ([1871
95] 2003; MEGA2 II/14). Missing here are still some drafts from 1867/68 that
are going to be edited in MEGA2 II/4.3.
1230
to Book 3 and he intensely studied the movement of the rate of profit and
the main factors determining this movement. Changes in wages, in the
length of the working day or in the intensity of labour were important, as
were technical progress and its influence on quantity and price of constant
capital. Marx explored these changes by calculating numerous examples,
keeping one or more of the determining factors variable capital, constant
capital, total capital, surplus value, rate of surplus value, profit, rate of profit
or the turnover of capital constant while varying the others. A second
subject not completed in 1864/65 was the analysis of ground rent. Marx
himself made notes for rearranging the text of this chapter to give it a more
detailed structure as well as a summarising section on the transformation
of surplus value into rent (Marx [1864/65] 1992: 81617). A third subject
remaining open in many ways was, as just mentioned, was that of credit,
interest, money and capital. This state of the manuscript was one of the
main reasons why Engels needed 10 years to finish his edition.
The enumeration of the extra manuscript material on his three books on
Capital emphasizes a first point: Marx was a master of revision. This is
confirmed by several of Marxs statements, for instance, when he says that
the final revision was still pending as he wanted to decide what should be
kept for the official presentation and what should be omitted (Marx
[1864/65] 1992: 83; 1867/68, IISH, MarxEngels Collection, A 76: 3).17 Or
when, in early 1866, he told Engels that his manuscript for all three books
of Capital was ready, but again, within the same breath, Marx qualified
this news because no one could publish this manuscript except he himself
(Marx to Engels, 13 February 1866).
A second point I want to stress is that the MEGA offers more material
than other editions, not only regarding the manuscripts mentioned above
but also with other types of written material. If we look at the material
gathered in the MEGA we find examples of several distinct levels of
communication. We may think of manuscripts on a first level as witnessing
the communication between the author with himself and with his
potential readers. On a second level, his letters give us notice of what
he talked about to the people around him. And, on a third level, there is
the vast part of his legacy that documents Marxs discourse with authors of
his time: his excerpts, the books he read and his collections of newspaper
cuttings.
17 Already in 1858, in a letter to Ferdinand Lassalle from 22 February, Marx had
admitted: [. . . ] no sooner does one set about finally disposing of subjects to
which one has devoted years of study than they start revealing new aspects and
demand to be thought out further See also Marx to Carl Leske on 1 August 1846
or Marx to Nikolai Danielson on 13 December 1881.
1231
Regina Roth
As we have seen above, Marx left his manuscripts for the missing
books of Capital rather unfinished. This left a margin to Engels, which
he used in structuring and revising passages when compiling the printed
versions of those books out of Marxs papers, in many cases for the use
of the reader. Comparing the drafts from Marx and the printed versions
from Engels18 there are many differences to be found, and in some
cases they turn out to be shifts in emphasis between the author Marx
and the editor Engels.
Some indications for such a shift might be discerned in the third chapter
on the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in Book 3 of Capital,
which is, in a certain way, also connected to the discussion of technical
change (see Section 5). First, it was Engels who structured this chapter
Marx had left those 40 handwritten pages with only few clues useful for
such a structuring, namely when he numbered several paragraphs and/or
emphasised their beginnings: for example, with the six counteracting
influences (Marx [1864/65] 1992: 3019). Yet it was Engels who
identified the text of Marx as providing some general considerations
within the development of the laws internal contradictions, and Engels
chose to close this point with the sentence that this process would entail
the rapid breakdown of capitalist production (Marx [1894] 2004: 243 and
10778; [1864/65] 1992: 315; see also Heinrich 2001: 360). By the way,
this passage is the only one in Book 3 where the term breakdown of
capitalist production is used. Breakdown or collapse as Marx would
have said19 is rarely chosen, and if so then in connection with prices or
credit.
Second, Marx had included in his manuscripts many passages in square
brackets indicating that what was to follow had to be thought over once
again, or be it with regard to the contents, be it with regard to the place
where to discuss the argument. In such a passage, Marx considered in
which conditions the rate of profit could remain constant or even rise.20 He
remained mute about the probability of such conditions and judged them
18 This has become easier with the edition of all drafts, treatises and notes left by
Marx and the printed versions compiled by Engels in the MEGA. First there are
the texts, but second there are several means of facilitating such a comparison:
particular lists defining the origin of passages in the printed versions, comparing
headings and structure, or listing additions made by Engels and textual
differences between the versions of Marx and Engels.
19 In this case, Marx had used a term not very common in his manuscript: zum
Klappen bringen which might be translated as being folded (Marx [1864/65]
1992: 315). So the term breakdown of capitalist production was, in a way, a
formulation of Engels.
20 I would like to thank Heinz D. Kurz for having drawn my attention to this and
the next point.
1232
to be mere abstract possibilities without excluding them explicitly (Marx

[1864/65] 1992: 319). Engels inserted the following sentence in the printed
version:
But in reality [. . .] the rate of profit will fall in the long run.
(Marx [1894] 2004: 227)
Third, Engels reworked a passage of Marx on the consequences of the

increase of the productivity of labour on the composition of capital, which
he presented as a Supplementary Remark to this third chapter. In his
addition, Engels argued that not every invention was an innovation.21 What
is remarkable here is the conclusion that Engels drew: a capitalist who does
not introduce a labour-saving machine misses the historical mission of
the capitalist mode of production; namely, to expand the productivity
of human labour. Therefore, Engels continued, this capitalist mode of
production is becoming senile and has further and further outlived its
epoch. (Marx [1894] 2004: 2589.) Marx did not give such a clear opinion
with a view to the future of capitalism, at least not in Capital.
In other places, Marx considered the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
as the real tendency and talked of the great importance that should be
attached to this law for the capitalist mode of production (Marx [1864/65]
1992: 286 and 288, see also 467). Moreover, later on, in a letter from April
1868, he identified this tendency as one of the greatest triumphs over [. . .]
all previous political economy (Marx to Engels, April 30, 1868). However,
these differences between manuscripts and printed versions indicate that
Marx attached more importance to balancing reasons and arguments
without always deciding which ones he preferred. In this case, he did
consider counteracting influences as well as cases with a constant or
increasing rate of profit. This is also confirmed in his later manuscripts
dealing with the rate of profit and the rate of surplus value. Yet he did not
always specify if his cases were confined to single industries or not, nor if
one of them could or would prevail in the long run.22 Unlike Engels, Marx
did not rule out explicitly those cases and left the question open. Such a
balancing was also to be found in several parts of the manuscripts of Books
2 and 3, as was shown above; for example, in the case of credit or ground
21 For further details, see Kurz 2010, Section 4.
22 See e.g. his last manuscript on this matter from 1875 (Marx and Engels [1871
95] 2003: 29, 1245). In an earlier manuscript, Marx discussed consequences of
an increasing productivity of labour in a paragraph titled The General Laws of
the Rate of Profit (Marx 1867/68, IISH, MarxEngels Collection, A 71: 156; see
also 1920).
1233
Regina Roth
rent, where Marx had considered different ways of structuring his thoughts
and arguments. Thus, without being conclusively proven it appears that
Marx had some doubts as to the validity of the law on the falling rate of
profit.23 Engels, on the other hand, preferred distinct expressions and
therefore in some cases, did not seem to balk at sharpening Marxs
formulations as long as they were in the spirit of the author, as he
understood it (Marx [1885] 2008a: 8; for further evidence see Vollgraf
2004: 2729).
Kenji Mori has drawn attention to another example of Marxs way of
submitting his analysis to a careful examination that is only to be found in
the manuscripts of Marx, and not in the printed version presented by
Engels. In Manuscript II, dedicated to the reproduction process in Book 2
of Capital, Marx developed a very detailed reproduction model comprising
of not two but six departments, discussing the transfer of products between
the departments and the money necessary for these transfers, the way in
which the surplus value is realized in the different departments and the
conditions for an equilibrium between these departments. Marx also asked
the question how these processes functioned after the equalization of the
rate of profit. After a few lines he broke off and left this problem to later
examination, which did not take place (Marx [186881] 2008b: 495; [1885]
2008a: 5403; Mori 2009).
4. Marxs excerpts on technology

Marxs interest in technical subjects arose early. In 1845 he had already
studied French translations of the works of Andrew Ure and Charles
Babbage, stimulated by the second edition of the Histoire de leconomie
politique en Europe, depuis les anciens jusqua` nos jours from Adolphe Blanqui in
1842. (Marx [184447] 1998: 8 and 10; Winkelmann 1982: LXXXIIIII.)
Marx filled one of six notebooks with excerpts referring to the machinery
question, a term common in the discussions of this time. However, during
this phase, Marx left out most of the genuine technical aspects dealt with by
Babbage and Ure, such as the discussions on the differences between
machinery and tools or detailed considerations on the division of labour.
Instead, he focused firstly, on economic questions: what influence
did machines have on price, cost, exports or overproduction? And
secondly, on the social effects of machinery: what impact did machinery
23 Perhaps an anecdote can be told here: Playing a popular parlour game called
Confessions in 1865, Marx offered as his motto: De omnibus dubitandum
everything is to be doubted (Familie Marx privat. 2005: 118 (Abb. 1), 2345).
1234
have on the working people? (Winkelmann 1982: LXXXIVseqq; Paulinyi

1998: 201.)24 Shortly after having signed a contract with the publisher Carl
Leske on a Kritik der Politik und Nationalokonomie in two volumes in February
1845, Marx had decided to expand his studies and to include several works
dealing with the social effects of the industrialisation, known under the
keyword of pauperism (Marx [184447] 1998: 4578). Marxs examination
of the machinery question and the factory system particularly identified a
displacement of workers, a prolongation of the working day and an
intensification of work. He made first use of his excerpts in 1847 along
with some additions on the excerpts from Ure when refuting the
suggestions of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. (Marx 1847; Winkelmann 1982:
CXXIIIII). We may see that Marx intended neither to consider technical
aspects in any detail nor to examine those questions in separate chapters of
his critique; instead he probably had in mind to deal with them in relation
to respective economic or social topics.
In 1850/51, after the failure of the revolution and his emigration to
London, Marx started comprehensive studies in the British Museum. They
included political economy in its very diverse aspects, but went far beyond
that. He made extensive excerpts from books dealing with cultural history,
the social condition and influence of women through time and society, and
technology, the history thereof, and agronomy (Marx to Engels, 13
October 1851). Marx used, as he already had in 1845, the term technology
in the style of Adolphe Blanqui and Andrew Ure (Marx [184447] 1998:
460 and 540) as well as Johann Beckmann, who, as Marx recorded in one of
his notebooks, first used it to denote the connection of mechanics, physics,
and chemistry with artisanry, which, as Marx added, should mean
production (Muller 1981: 50; see also Marx [186163] 197682: 1932).
Marx later on in the first edition of Capital also used technology when he
talked of aspects that in German we would denote today as belonging to
Technik (Paulinyi 1998: 20; Muller 1981: X). In the second edition, as the
editors of MEGA2 II/6 observed, Marx often replaced Technologie by
Technik, and also the adjective technological by technical.25 In any
case, Marx still more often used other terms to talk of technical processes,
instruments or procedures; for example, machine, machinery or instru-
24 More details might be seen looking at the marginalia in the copy of Ures two
volumes in French that Marx had in his private library. This copy shows a lot of
marks within the text and in the margins with different types of pencils which
have not yet been evaluated in detail (MEGA2 IV/32 1999: No. 1343).
25 Incidentally, along with this Marx replaced the somewhat opaque notion
technological composition of capital in the beginning of Chapter 23 just by
composition (Jungnickel 1987: 223).
1235
Regina Roth
ments of labour. Technical change is often discussed as one factor of the

increase of the productivity of labour (see also Ropohl 2007: 66).
Even during the autumn of 1851, Marx sounded out several contacts to
publishers in Germany for a way to publish his economics, two volumes on
the history of political economy, a third on socialism and a fourth on his
critique.26 These plans coincided with Marxs intense studies mentioned
above. On the one hand, those studies covered German literature on
technology, mainly J.H. Moritz Poppe, also Johann Beckmann and a
German edition from Andrew Ures Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, and
Mines, translated and revised by Karl Karmasch and Friedrich Heeren. In
his excerpts, Marx concentrated on the history of inventions since the
Middle Ages, this time also with growing interest for technical details,
preferably for mills, timepieces and steam (Muller 1981: LVseqq; LXXI).
On the other hand, they also contained works of Justus von Liebig and
James F.W. Johnston dealing with findings in agricultural chemistry and
geology and their application to practical agriculture. In contrast to his
early excerpts on political economy for example, from 1844 (Marx [1844
47] 1998: 472; Rojahn 2002: 32seqq.) , Marxs excerpts on technical
aspects show a somewhat neutral approach. He stuck to the structure used
by the authors and noted their points without commentary or criticism
(Muller 1981: LXXIXX; Winkelmann 1982: XCIIseqq. and CVseqq.).
Marxs key interest in all of his studies seemed to be acquiring basic
knowledge of these technical fields. We find detailed notes on various
procedures to break up and separate numerous substances that were
probably not written down with the intention of using them in later
manuscripts. Also, numerous parts of the excerpts from Liebig and
Johnston meticulously pinned down the chemical and geological processes,
leaving the prevailing impression that they were written out of a genuine
interest in the technical details. Marx left open where and in which ways he
wanted to make use of these excerpts within his economics (Muller 1981:
LVIseqq.; Marx [1851] 1991: 172seqq., 276seqq. and 327seqq.).
Moreover, Marx continued to research the social effects of machinery on
working people, focusing on the textile industry in his Londoner Hefte. Peter
Gaskell, writing on the condition of labouring people in his Artisans and
Machinery, drew Marxs attention to the at first increasing demand for
labour in the wake of the introduction of spinning-machines, which was
followed by numerous labourers being replaced by other machines. John
26 These efforts eventually failed in 1852, as well as an attempt to write at least an
essay presenting modern literature on political economy in England from 1830
to 1852 for Die Gegenwart, an anthology published in serial volumes by Brockhaus
(Rubel 1957: 415seqq.; McLellan 1974: 303).
1236
Fielden described the increasing demand for children as labourers and the
abuses they had to suffer in his Curse of the Factory System (Muller 1992: 277
8, 286seqq.; Marx [1851] 1991: 104seqq. and 43seqq.).
One of the main interests of Marxs analysis of capitalist production was
to identify the major causes of why the industrial revolution started in the
eighteenth century in Great Britain. Muller concludes that Marx, in his
excerpts from 1851 on German technology, did not come to a satisfying
result, neither with his studies on technical processes nor on the historical
development of those inventions (Muller 1981: CIseqq.).
Marx returned to his studies on machinery only in 1856. He started a
collection with the intention of gathering material on money, credit and
crises out of his excerpts. There he also noted some excerpts from the
German edition of Ures Technisches Worterbuch and Poppes Geschichte der
Technologie, referring to physical properties of gold for coins (Muller 1981:
169 and LXXXV). Some pages before this he had also noted earlier
excerpts from two other books he had read in 1850 on questions of coinage
(IISH, MarxEngels-Collection, B 75: 24; for 1850, see Marx [184951]
1983: 214seqq.). In his first effort to write down the outlines of his
economics in 1857/58 in the so-called Grundrisse, Marx made some use of
his excerpts, not in a systematic way but rather with a few more or less
widespread remarks on the question of machinery and technology.27
At the beginning of the 1860s Marx envisaged starting with a
systematization of his considerations on the role of machinery in the
economy. In a notebook he collected quotes from his earlier excerpts
under different topics, calling them his Citatenheft (notebook of quotes).
He chose two headings for his excerpts on machinery, first Productivity of
Labour (Winkelmann 1982: 95seqq. and CXXVIIVIII) and second M)
Machinery (Muller 1992: 329seqq.). In the first, Marx gathered four quotes
from Babbage out of his notebook from 1851 along with other quotes from
Adam Smith, shortening them to the essence of machinery and division of
labour as he then saw it (Winkelmann 1982: CXXXVIIVIII). In the
second, he also started with a collection of quotes, referring to the social
effects of machinery. Most of them warned that machines would decrease
the demand for labour and in fact increase the length of the working day,
by more shifts or overtime. Marx then continued with the economic and
social effects presented by Peter Gaskell, now turning to write down a sort
of essay on the development of weaving in the wake of the introduction of
27 Marx quotes Ure (Marx [1857/58] 2006: 569/70) and Babbage (Marx [1857/
58] 2006: 257, 291, 480, 569, 597) from the early note-books as well as Poppe
(Marx [1857/58] 2006: 718) and Gaskell (Marx [1857/58] 2006: 478, 697) from
the Londoner Hefte.
1237
Regina Roth
spinning mills, thereby, as Muller points out, arguing for the machine as a
distinguishing element of capitalist production, a position Marx did not
adhere to in other contexts or even rejected. In later manuscripts, he
changed his mind and did not make use of this essay, but only of the
quotes from the other authors. (Muller 1992: 308seqq. and 331seqq.).
At the same time, Marx also made new excerpts of many books in a
notebook carrying the title Political Economy Criticism of.28 He had
already read numerous books earlier; that was the case with Babbage, whose
work Marx now read in the first English edition from 1832. These excerpts
appear to have been noted after those in the Citatenheft. Marx again
noticed Babbages distinction of three categories of machines; his other
excerpts cover various topics that were not considered in the early notes.29
The early 1860s may be interpreted as a turning point in Marxs
treatment of the role of technical change. Early on he had been aware of
the existence of this subject and also perhaps of its latent potential;
however, he had treated it only in relation to his purely economic
questions. But then his interest in technical change and in technical
processes in general grew considerably and so did his will to deal with
machinery, factories, modern industry and industrial revolution. In his
Manuscript 186163 Marx developed the presentation of relative surplus
value and, in this context, he considered treating technical aspects in a
more detailed way; in his letter to Engels from 28 January 1863 he talked of
a section on machinery. To do this Marx re-evaluated his excerpts from
1851 and made intensive use of them in his manuscript. Most of the markups to be found in his excerpts date from this period (Winkelmann 1982:
CXXVIVII; Muller 1981: LXXXVIIseqq.). Marx drew on Babbage and his
views on the cost of technical innovations (Marx [186183] 197682: 3056,
1681 and 1867)30 and on conditions for the development of machinery as
an element which revolutionises the mode of production and the relations
of production ([186163] 197682: 1914). He started with Babbages
definition of the machine as the union of several simple tools driven by a
common power. Then, looking for the causes of industrial revolution, Marx
28 IISH, MarxEngels Collection, B 91 A. The notebook carries the notion Heft VII,
because Marx had used its first 63 pages to write down the last part of the Grundrisse
written in seven note books (Hefte). (IISH, MarxEngels Collection, A 49.)
29 IISH, (MarxEngels Collection, B 91 A: 1845) and Winkelmann (1982:
101seqq. and CXXVIIIIX). Marx did not use the fourth edition from 1835
already available. The French edition that he had read in 1845 had been a
translation from the third English edition from 1833 (Winkelmann 1982:
CLXXXVII, footnote 11).
30 Marx used examples of Babbage for the devaluation of new machines in the
wake of improvements and for the costs due to the maintenance of machinery.
1238
added a historical examination of how machines from the textile and other
industries had developed since the Middle Ages, especially quoting Poppe31
(Marx [186163] 197682: 1915, 191825, 192835 and 1940.)
He also spotted new sources of information on the technical principles of
machinery because he aimed to elaborate on the conditions for inventions
and development of machinery. Once again he dived deep into his
research reading and taking extensive notes out of the second volume of
The Industry of Nations, a compendium on machines that had been
presented at the world exhibition in London in 1851. Decisive parts of it
were probably written by James Nasmyth, a distinguished inventor and
mechanical engineer.32 Another source was Robert Willis, an inventor and
professor of mechanical engineering and pivotal in the education of
applied mechanics. Marx attended one of the lectures Willis gave to
workers in his Government School of Mines in Jermyn Street, London.
Marx concentrated on manufacturing technology, a branch of machinery
that would become vital to the development of industry and economy, and
he gained remarkable insights into the nature of machine technology as
Paulinyi observes (Paulinyi 1998: 23seqq.). However, these studies also
reveal Marxs genuine interest in technical processes, instruments and
procedures (Marx [186183] 197682: 193549 and 197988.) Later on, in
spring 1863, Marx turned again to the five-volume collection of Johann
Beckmann on the history of inventions since the Middle Ages, at the time
more extensively read than in 1851.33
Already in his Beihefte, a collection of notebooks with numerous new
excerpts from literature that Marx stored for the writing of Capital in spring
1863, there are traces to be found from another subject on which he would
spent a lot of time on in the years to follow: agricultural chemistry and its
repercussions on farming. In Beiheft D some first excerpts appear from
ber Theorie und Praxis in der Landwirthschaft, published in
Justus v. Liebigs U
1856 (IISH, MarxEngelsCollection, B 93: 3740). Marx then, in 1865/66,
filled a voluminous notebook while writing his first draft of Capital Book 3,
especially regarding its sixth chapter on the transformation of surplus value
into ground rent. As a consequence, the part on ground rent became
almost long enough to be a book in itself (Marx to Engels, 13 February
31 Marx mainly used Poppes Geschichte der Technologie; he did not draw on the
remaining treatises from Poppe, which he had also read in the 1850s (Muller
1981: 347).
32 Nasmyth also promoted his and others findings in Remarks on the Introduction of
the Slide Principle in 1841 (Paulinyi 1998: 312).
33 The excerpts are to be found in the so-called Beiheft D (Muller 1994). Marx
noticed some examples for the displacement of workers by early machines and
also details of the improvements for mills in early centuries and societies.
1239
Regina Roth
1866). Among the excerpts on the economic and social condition of rural
economies in different countries many of them were used in this sixth
chapter there are about 100 pages dedicated to Justus v. Liebig. Marx was
interested in information on the relationship between agricultural methods
and crop yields, in particular the effects and costs of modern ways of
fertilizing soil compared with older ones such as crop rotation or drainage,
or Liebigs considerations on the feeding of the population.34 On 13
February 1866, Marx explained to Engels that the recent works of Liebig
and other chemists were more important for the question of ground rent
than all economists together.35
In his first Volume of Capital, Marx devoted about one-sixth of his
presentation to Machinery and Modern Industry. His extensive studies
during the past 20 years had left their mark, namely his excerpts from
Charles Babbage and Andrew Ure. Yet to evidence the social effects of
machinery on labouring people he had consulted more recent sources,
mainly reports from parliamentary enquiries and from inspectors of
factories (Winkelmann 1982: LXXXIXseqq., CVI and CXXXVIseqq.). Still
after the publication of his first Volume of Capital in 1867, Marx continued
his detailed studies on improvements in agriculture, now reading several
books by Carl Fraas.36 In one of them, Klima und Pflanzenwelt in der Zeit, he
provided evidence for the destructive impact of cultivation in general, as
Marx pointed out in a letter to Engels: The first effect of cultivation is
useful, but finally devastating through deforestation, etc. [. . .] The
conclusion is that cultivation when it proceeds in natural growth and is
not consciously controlled [. . .] leaves deserts behind it, Persia, Mesopotamia,
etc., Greece (Marx to Engels, 25 March 1868).
In the last decade of his life, along with his political engagement in the
international labour movement and his continuing efforts to manage Books
2 and 3 of Capital, Marx started a new phase of comprehensive studies
leading him in diverse directions. Many of them had their origins in the
gaps and questions left open in Capital mentioned above. Money, credit
and banks were on his agenda, just as were ground rent and landed
34 IISH, MarxEngels Collection, B 106: 29135. Marx read Liebigs Einleitung in die
Naturgesetze des Feldbaus and Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und
Physiologie, both from 1862. See Marx ([1864/65] 1992) for the first draft of
Capital, Book 3.
35 See also Marx to Engels, (3 January 1868): I would like to know from
Schorlemmer what is the latest and best book (German) on agricultural
chemistry. [. . . ] For the chapter on ground rent I shall have to be aware of the
latest state of the question at least to some extent.
36 IISH, Marx-Engels-Collection, B 107, 111 and 112. He also re-read Poppes
Geschichte der Mathematik (ibid. B 107: 3).
1240
property. Moreover, Marx also immersed himself deeply in studies of

natural sciences: physiology, chemistry, geology and mathematics, to
mention the most prominent. Most of them are documented by extensive
excerpts, others by the books he read and that have survived the passage of
time. We also know of his various readings because he referred to them in
letters or in lists of books to read or buy in his notebooks (Vollgraf 2002:
4950). They show, I would suggest from the material available at the
moment, a change in his interests. Indeed, some of them were still linked to
economic problems in the broadest sense of the word. This may be said, for
example, of his reading of Julius Au: Die Hilfsdungemittel in ihrer volks- und
privatwirthschaftlichen Bedeutung, a book he kept in his private library
(MEGA2 IV/32 1999: No. 42). This author explicitly declared the economic
effects of fertilizers to be his main subject, and Marxs marginal notes show
his interest in Aus discussion of Malthus population theory.37
Other studies reveal, as already to be seen from his commentary on Fraas
in 1868, that Marx was interested in technical and scientific subjects as
such; that is, in a more general way. In some cases, when he started his
reading there was a hint of economics; for example, when he read several
books dealing with agriculture and natural sciences, he noted the title
Agricultur Bodenpreis, Rent. But then he noted geological and other
technical processes in great detail without any further reference to
economics (IISH, Marx-Engels-Collection, B 143), as was the case in most
of his late studies in natural sciences (see, for example, Marx and Engels
[187783] 1999).
5. Technical Change in Marxs manuscripts

Some considerations on the influence of the excerpts on Marxs economic
theory should be mentioned here, although this question is still to be
explored in greater detail when these texts will become available in the
MEGA. In Capital, terms such as technical progress, technical change or
simply technology turn up rarely. Still the investigation of different forms of
technical change was central to Marxs analysis of the capitalist mode of
production, in particular for the process of accumulation and to explain
the rate of profits tendency to fall. In his view, the prime motor of capitalist
production was the valorization of capital, the production of or, to be more
precise, the increase of the production of surplus value. Methods to
produce relative surplus value by raising the productivity of labour proved
37 RGASPI, fonds 1, opis 1, delo 6425: 285, 289, 303, 306 and 309. Marx also
highlighted a passage on reasons for ground rent (ibid.: 346).
1241
Regina Roth
to be more efficient and not as limited as those increasing the absolute

surplus value (e.g. by extending the working day). The basics are well
known. Examining the division of labour, cooperation, manufacture, and
machinery Marx found that these forms saved labour, or variable capital,
while constant capital raw materials, products used in the construction of
machines, and so forth remained unchanged or increased; thus the
organic composition of capital38 was raised. This, Marx observed, would
tend to lower the rate of profit, being defined as the relation of surplus
value or profits to the total capital outlay. To explain why capitalists wanted
to introduce new techniques that would lower their profits, Marx turned to
the forces of competition. Capitalists who used new cost-cutting techniques
were able to win super-profits until other capitalists also adopted the new
method. Then the price of the product fell, and a lower rate of profit would
be established. Marx assumed labour-saving innovations to be the dominant
form of technical change, and his presentation offers much evidence to the
view that they would ultimately lead to developments detrimental to the
capitalists interests. However, as Marx did not elaborate the process in
greater detail, he left room for diverting interpretations about the
connection between a falling rate of profit and a theory of crises or of a
breakdown of capitalism. (Schefold 1976: 818; Elster 1983: 177, 17980;
Heinrich 2001: 31170; see also above).
Early on, Schefold, using Sraffas theory of prices to analyse the impact of
different forms of technical progress on the composition of capital, the
wage rate, and so on, showed that the organic composition of capital could
remain constant with labour-saving technical progress, because labour
saving in all sectors lowers values not only of final products, but in the
long run also of the elements of constant capital. If the saving of labour
affects all sectors equally, the relative values of products and of the means
of production stay constant. The same will hold if commodities are
measured in terms of prices of production both as inputs and as outputs.
Moreover, the economy need not but can sustain a golden age . . . if no
outside disturbance takes place, and if a constant rate of profit provides
adequate savings for the investments required. He also pointed out that
Marx himself already worried about the possibility of capital-saving
progress; for example, savings of raw materials that would tend to lower
the organic composition hence the importance of the discovery that the
introduction of machinery implied the tendency to the productive
consumption of more materials. The introduction of the machine would
not change the materials of which the commodity to be produced was
38 See Heinrich (2001: 31522) for a well-informed and detailed discussion of this
category and its meanings within the different versions of Marxs work.
1242
made, but more materials were needed to produce the machine: the
organic composition had to rise in this case.39
In fact, Marx did mention the counteracting savings of means of
production, particularly of raw materials.40 He dealt with such savings in the
third book of Capital, and defined them as a countertendency to the fall in
the rate of profit because, while the value of raw materials may fall
considerably, quantities used in production might increase. Within these
considerations Marx also noted that there were factors limiting this
countertendency, which seems to be a repercussion of the passage on the
restricted cheapening of raw materials primarily organic raw materials
in the earlier Manuscript 186163 already quoted by Schefold.41 This is also
an example for Marxs method to balance reasons and arguments very
carefully. In 1864/65 Marx wrote:
[It should be taken into account . . .] that the value of the constant capital does not
increase in the same proportion as its material volume is growing [. . .] E.g. the
quantity of cotton [. . . ] It is the same with machines and other fixed capital, [[Again,
there are also counteractive causes; prices of certain animal or plant products
increasing]]42 coal etc. (Marx [1864/65] 1992: 305; my translation)
It could be noteworthy that this passage in square brackets was one that
Engels left out in the printed version of the third book of Capital, (Marx
[1894] 2004: 233 and 954.) Although he knew Manuscript 186163 since
1884/85, there is little evidence that Engels knew of the passage in which
Marx clearly argues that
[. . .] capitalist production has not yet succeeded, and never will succeed in mastering
these processes [i.e. animal organic processes] in the same way as it has mastered
purely mechanical or inorganic chemical processes. (Marx [186163] 197682:
1809)
From 1884 onwards, Engels repeatedly leafed through several of Marxs 23

notebooks, Manuscript 186163, as we know from his letters, and he
39 Schefold (1976: 808 and 817). I would like to thank Bertram Schefold for helpful
comments on these forms of technical change and Marxs views on them.
40 Marx considered them as a distinct operation, that is, as methods not
concerning and independent of the labourer. This and the following quotes
from Capital, volume 1 refer to the second edition from 1872, the last German
one that Marx himself has arranged (Marx [1872] 1987: 322).
41 Marx ([1864/65] 1992: 11064 and 305; [186163] 19761982: 180910) and
Schefold (1976: 81718); see also Ricoy (2003).
42 Marx often used square brackets to keep hold of ideas, notes and so on. I have
used double square brackets here to distinguish Marxs brackets from the
editorial ones.
1243
Regina Roth
compiled a table of contents for it using the entries that Marx had left on
the covers of those notebooks. Having deciphered the third book up to
page 230 Marxs observation being on page 217 Engels declared in a
letter to Laura Lafargue from 8 March 1885 that the essential part of this
manuscript had already been dealt with in this older Manuscript 186163.
However, it is open to question whether Engels spotted the passage on the
limits of organic raw materials possibly because it is found in a discussion on
Cherbuliez in the later part where Marx resumes his elaboration of Theories
on Surplus Value, and not in the part dedicated explicitly to capital, profit
and the rate of profit.43 In his presentation in Capital, Marx specified
another countertendency to the falling rate of profit, the increased
exploitation rate resulting from the introduction of new machines. It marks
another controversial issue with view to technical change and the falling
rate of profit that can only be mentioned in passing here (Elster 1983: 181;
Marx [1864/65] 1992: 3025; Heinrich 2001: 32770).
How did Marx make use of his excerpts in his manuscripts? First, he used
a historical approach to trace the conditions in which cooperation and
mechanisation developed into a new system based on the production of
machines by machines. Starting with the definition of a machine by
Babbage, he examined the development from tool to machinery combining
the observations of the technical movement since the Middle Ages made by
Poppe with more modern developments, such as the slide-rest and the
steam-hammer, discussed in the Industry of Nations. In consequence, Marx
spotted the increasing number of working machines as the decisive factor
of the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century, not steam power as
he had emphasized in earlier writings and was widely assumed in Marxs
time (Marx [1872] 1987: 362seqq.; Paulinyi 1998: 12, 24 and 345). He also
stated that the revolution of working methods in one industry caused
similar transformations in other industries (Marx [1872] 1987: 3745).
Second, the excerpts emphasize the fundamental importance that Marx
attributed to science for the growth of productivity, making it a decisive
productive factor without suggesting a complete dependence of science
from economic needs. This aspect has already been addressed by
Rosenberg (1974); and Ricoy added that, apart from science, the
accumulation of practical experience proved to be essential for the development of machinery (Ricoy 2003: 51 and 613).44 Marxs considerations
43 Marx and Engels ([187195] 2003: 3456, 10223); Marx ([186163] 197682:
1544 and 1802).
44 For instance, Marx singled out a new principle for the improvement of working
methods; namely, the principle of dividing any process into its constituent
phases or components, essential for any natural or mechanical science (Marx
[1872] 1987: 442, 410 and 465).
1244
were not limited to the industrial sphere, with mechanical engineering,

transportation and communication playing a prominent role apart from
the textile industry. Moreover, his notebooks affirm that technical change
in agriculture should be discussed in greater detail. Marxs interest was
devoted to the effects of new findings in chemistry on the cultivation
methods that were crucial for his analysis of differential rent (see, for
example, Marx [1864/65] 1992: 7634, 768 and 833), while at the same
time alluding to the destructive powers of these methods (Marx [1864/65]
1992: 753; [1872] 1987: 4757).
Third, in Capital an interaction between economic theory and politics
may be observed, when the social effects of machinery that had dominated
the early excerpts once again became the focus of attention. In Marxs view,
only the capitalist use of machinery was responsible for a serious decline in
working conditions (Marx [1872] 1987: 399424). When summarizing,
Marx considers the factory system in the hand of capitalists as a means for
the systematic robbery of what is necessary for the life of the workman
([1872] 1987: 413). His lasting interest in these social aspects is shown in
autumn 1877, in one of his lists with modifications compiled for a planned
third and a possible American edition of the first book.45 Here Marx noted
several alterations for the chapter on Machinery and Modern Industry; for
instance, one referring to the interaction between economic crisis and
technical change.46 On the other hand, Marx also shows that legal controls
and restrictions for the working conditions were a necessary product of
modern industry. And although these regulations were insufficient in
many ways, they were enforced slowly but nevertheless universally,
improving safety levels and in fact shortening the length of the working
day (Marx [1872] 1987: 45675).
45 It could be useful to know that in these lists Marx also noted that his analysis
of the origin of the capitalist mode of production should be limited to
Western European countries. Marx had revised his presentation in the French
edition, 187275, and confirmed this view in his letter to Vera Zasulich from
8 March 1881. Anderson has pointed out that this modification was
disregarded in the third and in the English edition arranged by Engels
(Marx [1883] 1989: 17 and 670; [1872] 1987: 646; [187275] 1989: 634;
Anderson 1983).
46 Marx points out that for workers, the effects of an economic crisis would be
aggravated by the introduction of machines; he quotes an example from the
American cotton industry during the War of Secession. He presents a
statistic showing that new machines have caused an enormous process of
concentration within the cotton industry during the war and have led to the
dismissal of more than 50,000 workers (Marx [1883] 1989: 8; [187275]
1989: 374).
1245
Regina Roth
6. Technical change in Marxs politics

Finally, I would like to make an excursion into politics of the nineteenth
century to see the impact of the ideas and concepts that Marx developed in
his studies and his work for his political activities.47 In September 1868 the
IWMA discussed The Effects of Machinery in the Hands of the Capitalist
Class at its third congress assembled at Brussels. After the congress in
Lausanne in September 1867, the Paris bureau of the IWMA published a
proposal for the programme in Brussels, which included the use of
machines in industry. In January 1868, Marx opened the debate on the
questions to be submitted to the congress at Brussels in the General
Council of the IWMA. Machinery and its effects ranked in the second place
next to credit, cooperatives, education, then the property of land, mines,
railways and other traffic infrastructure, and also strikes (Marx and Engels
[186771] 2009: 535, 5389 and 1835). In July 1868, the debate on those
questions started within the General Council, and it was Marx who made a
point of discussing first and foremost machinery and its effects (Marx and
Engels [186771] 2009: 577).
In the discussion in the General Council, Marx argued that machines
had effects that turned out to be the opposite of what was expected: they
prolonged the working day instead of shortening it; the proportion of
women and children working in mechanized industries increased;
labourers suffered from a growing intensity of labour and became more
dependent on capitalists because they did not own the means of production
any more labourers turned out to be slaves of their masters; many
workers were dismissed from work, to use Marxs words, according to the
minutes, written down by Johann Georg Eccarius: they were positively
killed (Marx and Engels [186771] 2009: 581); and in agriculture the
introduction of machinery produced an increasing surplus population and
thereby induced a wage lowering pressure (ibid.). Arguments in favour of
machinery did not meet much response. John Weston pointed out that it
would be useful to take industries other than only the textile industry into
account; he argued that in the carpentry trade, machinery shortened the
working day and did not decrease the demand for labour. Harriet Law, one
of the most prominent libertines in London, indicated, according to the
minutes, that [m]achinery had made women less dependent on men [. . .]
& would ultimately emancipate them from domestic slavery (ibid.: 585).
Neither of those arguments came up in the resolution to be presented to
47 I am grateful to Jurgen Herres, who pointed this out in sharing his extensive
knowledge on the IWMA with me. Details and evidence for this chapter are
mostly to be found in Marx and Engels [186771] 2009.
1246
the above, mentioned congress that the General Council adopted in the
meeting of 11 August. Instead, the resolution dealt exclusively with the
difference between the capitalists despotism & extortion when used by
capitalists and the material premise for the abolition of wage-labour. This
was reminiscent of the distinction between a machine as such and a
machine in the hands of the capitalist in Capital (Marx [1867] 1983: 375).48
All of the delegates to the congress at Brussels agreed that the introduction
of machinery tended to be less advantageous for labourers than for
capitalists, stressing the lowering of wages and the dismissal of workers. The
commission accepted the resolution proposed by the General Council.
(Marx and Engels [186771] 2009: 18846).
7. Conclusion
Shortly before the publication of Volume 1 of Capital, Engels worried: I
had really begun to suspect from one or two phrases in your last letter
that you had again reached an unexpected turning-point which might
prolong everything indefinitely. (Engels to Marx, 7 August 1865).
Current editions of his work appears to confirm Engels worries and
show Marx as a master of revision, his eyes open for new sources and
other views on his economics. He often looked for several ways to
resolve a problem, not always being adequately satisfied with the solutions
he found. This can be seen in his unpublished papers that make up a
large part of his legacy. Regarding technical change, we may observe that
Marx started his enquiry focusing on the social effects of machinery:
namely, on the dismissal of workers, and a wide-ranged deterioration of
working conditions. Apart from that he also examined the relation of
machinery to economic aspects. In his later studies he included the
development of machinery in history and developed an interest in how
the technical devices functioned, in other words, in the more technical
aspects. Moreover, he also took agriculture into account and the
improvements that natural sciences findings offered for the cultivation
of soil and the breeding of cattle. However, there is another side of the
coin to Marxs openness. He sometimes drifted away from his primary
questions and subjects, and discovered new areas of research. This may be
seen in his excerpts of the early 1850s as well as in those of the 1870s
where he, besides exploring political economy, plunged into extensive
48 Speaking at the congress in Brussels, Friedrich Lessner referred to Marxs
Capital. In the proceedings there are no details as to the passages Lessner quoted
(La Premie`re Internationale 1962: 297).
1247
Regina Roth
studies of geology, chemistry and mathematics. Nevertheless, he arrived at

a detailed analysis of technical change and its importance for capitalist
production, emphasizing the revolutionary effects, the pivotal role of the
mechanical engineering and its significance in the emancipation of the
labourers by building a truly social system of production (Marx and
Engels [186771] 2009: 587). He also occasionally alluded to the
destructive power of technical change.
Acknowlegements
I would like to thank Jurgen Herres, Heinz D. Kurz, Bertram Schefold and
three anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions, and
James Gay and Ian Whalley who checked the English. The responsibility for
the text rests, of course with the author.
References
Writings from Karl Marx not yet published are to be found in the International Institute
for Social History in Amsterdam (IISH, MarxEngels Collection) or at the Russian State
Archive of Social and Political History in Moscow (RGASPI, fonds 1, opis 1). Letters or
content of letters from Marx and Engels are quoted from either the MEGA or MECW
and are identified only by date without reference to special editions and volumes. For
details on the publications of the MEGA see their website: http://mega.bbaw.de
Anderson, K. (1983). The unknown Marxs Capital: The French edition of 18725, 100
years later. Review of Radical Political Economics, 15 (4): 7180.
Bagaturija, G. (2002). Die Briefpartner von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels. In J. Herres,
M. Neuhaus (Eds.). Politische Netzwerke durch Briefkommunikation. Briefkultur der
politischen Oppositionsbewegungen und fruhen Arbeiterbewegungen im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin:
Akademie, pp. 33549.
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining Technical Change. A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science. Oslo:
Cambridge University Press. (Repr. 1993).
Engels, F. (1988 [1878]). Herrn Eugen Duhrings Umwalzung der Wissenschaft. In
K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First Section, Vol. 27. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2
I/27).
Familie Marx privat. (2005). Familie Marx privat. Die Foto- und Fragebogen-Alben von Marx
Tochtern Laura und Jenny. I. Omura et al. Eds. Mit einem Essay von I. Fetscher. Berlin:
Akademie.
konomie
Heinrich, M. (2001). Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen O
berarb. und erw.
zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition. U
Neuaufl., 2nd ed. Munster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.
Hubmann, G., Munkler, H., and Neuhaus, M. (2001). . . . es kommt drauf an sie zu
verandern. Zur Wiederaufnahme der Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). Deutsche
Zeitschrift fur Philosophie, 49 (2): 299311.
Jungnickel, J. (1987). Zu den Textanderungen von der 1. zur 2. deutschen Auflage des
ersten Bandes des, Kapital. Beitrage zur Marx-Engels-Forschung, 23: 1825.
1248

Kurz, H.D. (2010). Technical progress, capital accumulation and income distribution in classical economics: Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. European
Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17 (5): 1183222.
Marx, K. (1989 [187275]). Le Capital. Paris 187275. In K. Marx and F. Engels,
Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 7. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2 II/7).
Marx, K. (1998 [184447]). Exzerpte und Notizen. Sommer 1844 bis Anfang 1847. In
K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Fourth Section, Vol. 3. Berlin: Akademie.
(MEGA2 IV/3).
Marx, K. (1983 [184951]). Exzerpte und Notizen. September 1849 bis Februar 1851.
In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Fourth Section, Vol. 7. Berlin: Dietz.
(MEGA2 IV/7).
Marx, K. (1986 [1851]). Exzerpte und Notizen. Marz bis Juni 1851. In K. Marx and
F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Fourth Section, Vol. 8. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2 IV/8).
Marx, K. (1991 [1851]). Exzerpte und Notizen. Juli bis September 1851. In K. Marx and
F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Fourth Section, Vol. 9. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2 IV/9).
Marx, K. (1983 [1867]), 1987 [1872], 1989 [1883]). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen
konomie. 1st Band. Hamburg 1867, 2nd ed. 1872, 3rd ed. 1883 ed. F. Engels. In
O
K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 5, 6, 8. Berlin: Dietz.
(MEGA2 II/5, II/6, II/8).
konomie. 2nd Band.
Marx, K. (2008a [1885]). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen O
Hamburg 1885. Ed. F. Engels. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section,
Vol. 13. Berlin: Akademie. (MEGA2 II/13).
konomie. 3rd Band.
Marx, K. (2004 [1894]). Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen O
Hamburg 1894. Ed. F. Engels. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section,
Vol. 15. Berlin: Akademie. (MEGA2 II/15).
Marx, K. (2008b) [186881]. Manuskripte zum zweiten Buch des Kapitals 1868 bis 1881.
In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 11. Berlin: Akademie.
(MEGA2 II/11).
Marx, K. (1847). Mise`re de la philosophie. Paris: A. Frank, Bruxelles: C.G. Vogler.
konomische Manuskripte 1857/1858. 2nd ed. In K. Marx
Marx, K. (2006 [1857/58]). O
and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 1. Berlin: Akademie. (1st ed.
1976/81.) (MEGA2 II/1).
konomische Manuskripte 18631867. Part 2. In K.
Marx, K. (1992 [1864/65]). O
Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 4, Part 2. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2
II/4.2).
Marx, K. (1982 [184344]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurfe. Marz 1843 bis August 1844.
In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First Section, Vol. 2. Berlin: Dietz. (MEGA2 I/
2).
konomie (Manuskript 1861
Marx, K. (197682) [186163]). Zur Kritik der politischen O
1863). In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Second Section, Vol. 3. Parts 16. Berlin:
Dietz. (MEGA2 II/3.16).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (2003 [187195]). Manuskripte und redaktionelle Texte zum
dritten Buch des Kapitals 1871 bis 1895. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe,
Second Section, Vol. 14. Berlin: Akademie. (MEGA2 II/14).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1999 [187783]). Naturwissenschaftliche Exzerpte und
Notizen. Mitte 1877 bis Anfang 1883. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Fourth
Section, Vol. 31. Berlin: Akademie. (MEGA2 IV/31).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1985 [1854]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurfe. Januar bis Dezember
1854. K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First section, Vol. 13. Berlin: Dietz (MEGA2
I/13).
1249
Regina Roth
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1984 [185960]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurfe. Januar 1859 bis
Dezember 1860. K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First Section, Vol. 18. Berlin:
Dietz (MEGA2 I/18).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1992 [186467]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurf. September 1864 bis
September 1867. K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First section, Vol. 20. Berlin:
Dietz (MEGA2 I/20).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1985 [187582]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurfe. Mai 1875 bis
Mai 1883. K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First Section, Vol. 25. Berlin: Dietz.
(MEGA2 I/25).
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (2009 [186771]). Werke. Artikel. Entwurfe. September 1867 bis
Marz 1871. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Gesamtausgabe, First Section, Vol. 21. Berlin:
Akademie. (MEGA2 I/21).
McLellan, D. (1974). Karl Marx. Leben und Werk. Munchen: Praeger.
MEGA2 IV/32. (1999). Die Bibliotheken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels.
Annotiertes Verzeichnis des ermittelten Bestandes. In K. Marx and F. Engels,
Gesamtausgabe, Fourth Section, Vol. 32. Berlin: Akademie. (MEGA2 IV/32).
Mori, K. (2004). Zu den Merkmalen der Umschlagstabellen von Marx fur das 2. Buch des
Kapitals. Beitrage zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. N.F. 2004: 5586.
Mori, K. (2009). Six-sector model of production and monetary circuit: Making sense of
Marxs original reproduction schemata. Draft presented at the ESHET 2009
Conference in Thessaloniki, Greece.
Muller, H.-P. (Ed.) (1981). Die technologisch-historischen Exzerpte. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe.
Transkribiert und hrsg. von H.-P. Muller Frankfurt/M: Ullstein.
Muller, H.-P. (1992). Karl Marx uber Maschinerie, Kapital und industrielle Revolution. Exzerpte
und Manuskriptentwurfe 18511861. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Muller, H.-P. (1994). Unbekannte Exzerpte von Karl Marx uber Johann Beckmann.
Johann Beckmann-Journal, 8: 6784.
Paulinyi, A. (1998). Karl Marx und die Technik seiner Zeit. Mannheim. In LTA
Forschung. Reihe des Landesmuseums fur Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim, 26/1998.
La Premie`re Internationale. (1962). Recueil de documents publie sous la direction
de J. Freymond. Gene`ve: Droz.
Ricoy, C.J. (2003). Marx on division of labour, mechanization and technical progress.
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10 (1): 4779.
Rojahn, J. (1985). Die Marxschen Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844 in der neuen Marx
Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA). Archiv fur Sozialgeschichte, 25: 64763.
Rojahn, J. (1998). Edition im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Wissenschaft (Marx/
Engels). In H.-G. Roloff (Ed.), Die Funktion von Editionen in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft.
Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag, pp. 133204.
Rojahn, J. (2002). The emergence of a theory: The importance of Marxs notebooks
exemplified by those from 1844. Rethinking Marxism, 14 (4): 2946.
Ropohl G. (2007). Karl Marx und die Technik. In W. Konig and H. Schneider (Eds.), Die
technikhistorische Forschung in Deutschland von 1800 bis zur Gegenwart. Kassel: Univ. Press,
pp. 6382.
Rosenberg, N. (1974). Karl Marx on the economic role of science. The Journal of Political
Economy, 82 (4): 713728.
Rubel, M. (1957). Les cahiers de lecture de Karl Marx. International Review of Social History,
2: 392420.
Schefold, B. (1976). Different forms of technical progress. The Economic Journal, 86:
80619.
1250
Vollgraf, C.-E. (2002). Marx Arbeit am dritten Buch des Kapital in den
1870/80er Jahren. In In memoriam Wolfgang Jahn: Der ganze Marx. Alles Verfasste
veroffentlichen, erforschen und den ungeschriebenen Marx rekonstruieren. Hamburg:
Argument, pp. 3366.
Vollgraf, C.-E. (2004). Engels Kapitalismus-Bild und seine inhaltlichen Zusatze zum
dritten Band des Kapitals. Beitrage zur Marx-Engels-Forschung. N.F. 2004: 753.
Winkelmann, R. (Ed.) (1982). Exzerpte u
ber Arbeitsteilung, Maschinerie und Industrie.
Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Transkribiert und hrsg. von R. Winkelmann. Mit einem
Vorwort von L. Krader. Frankfurt/M: Ullstein.
Abstract
Karl Marx is well known for sharply criticizing the social effects that
technical change had on the employment and the working conditions of
the labourers. At the same time, he was fascinated by the revolutionary
power that technical innovations offered and assigned such innovations to
play a prominent role in the development of modern society. We may
explore the origin and development of his views in greater detail referring
to the whole of his legacy, not only to his writings but also to his numerous
excerpts from the technological literature of his time.
Keywords
Karl Marx, technical change, industry, agriculture, working method
1251

Marx On Tech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marx On Tech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Euro. J.

History of Economic Thought 17:5 12231251 December 2010

Marx on technical change in the critical

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Frederick Engels, who edited Marxs papers to compile a second volume in

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Five institutions set up the International MarxEngels Foundation (IMES):

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

correspondence between both authors and approximately 2000 others, that

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Manuscripts on the Economics

3. Marx, a master of revision and collector

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

to be mere abstract possibilities without excluding them explicitly (Marx

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

(Marx [1894] 2004: 227)

Third, Engels reworked a passage of Marx on the consequences of the

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

4. Marxs excerpts on technology

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

have on the working people? (Winkelmann 1982: LXXXIVseqq; Paulinyi

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

ments of labour. Technical change is often discussed as one factor of the

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

property. Moreover, Marx also immersed himself deeply in studies of

5. Technical Change in Marxs manuscripts

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

to be more efficient and not as limited as those increasing the absolute

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

From 1884 onwards, Engels repeatedly leafed through several of Marxs 23

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

were not limited to the industrial sphere, with mechanical engineering,

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

6. Technical change in Marxs politics

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

studies of geology, chemistry and mathematics. Nevertheless, he arrived at

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change

Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 18:13 21 February 2015

Marx on technical change