39-02MarxHitlerRousseau2

Title: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume One (Introduction by Ernest Mandel, 1976)

Title: The Communist Manifesto (Introduction and notes by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2002)

"Men made clothes for thousands of years, under the compulsion of the need for clothing, without a single man becoming a tailor. But the existence of coats, of linen, of every element of material wealth not provided in advance by nature, had always to be mediated through a specific productive activity appropriate to its purpose, a productive activity that assimilated particular natural materials to particular human requirements. Labour, then, as the creator [own bold] of use values, as useful labour, is a condition of human existence which is independent of all forms of society [own bold]; it is an eternal natural necessity which mediates the metabolism between man and nature, and therefore human life itself.

Use-values like coats, linen, etc., in short, the physical bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements, the material provided by nature, and labour." (Marx 1990:133)

Elsewhere Marx implied that God creates out of nothing because he wrote humans only reform existents into new forms.

It seems Marx did not consider ideas as valuable, maybe because during his time labour was not remunerated fairly. He was possibly arguing for the most immediately logical solution for underpaid workers. Up to p. 133 of the book it seems as if the communist belief that all labour hours have the same value, could have originated partly from Marx. Did he see idea generation as an opposing force by capitalists?

Marx excluded qualitative aspects of labour and education from his calculation of "the value of a commodity" on this page (Marx 1990:135). "Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different cultural epochs, but in a particular society it is given. More complex labour counts only as intensified, or rather multiplied simple labour, so that a smaller quantity of complex labour is considered equal to a larger amount of simple labour. Experience shows that this reduction is constantly being made. A commodity may be the outcome of the most complicated labour, but through its value it is posited as equal to the product of simple labour, hence it represents only a specific quantity of simple labour." (Marx 1990:135) "In general, the greater the productivity of labour, the less the labour time required to produce an article, the less the mass of labour crystalized in that article, and the less its value. Inversely, the less the productivity of labour, the greater the labour-time necessary to produce an article, and the greater its value." (Marx 1990:133). The contradiction between pp. 133 and 135 is caused by Marx's idea of "In general", which he did "In the interest of simplification" (Marx 1990:135).

"Things which in and for themselves are not commodities, things such as conscience, honour, etc., can be offered for sale by their holders, and thus acquire the form of commodities through their price. Hence a thing can, formally speaking, have a price without having a value." (Marx 1990:197)

"The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities and their circulation in its developed form, namely trade, form the historic presuppositions under which capital arises. World trade and the world market date from the sixteenth century, and from then on the modern history of capital starts to unfold." (Marx 1990:247) This is obviously false because after ideas originate, then the capital is raised to develop those ideas. Money/Capital is then used to pay salaries during the development process of commodities. Especially when new money is printed and forwarded, for example at the OECD countries. The quantitative easing, which took place, recently after the 2008 financial crisis however were mostly used to refinance banks. The capital was thus created, which gave banks new capital to issue development capital. It would be interesting to see where all the quantitative easing capital entered the system.

Marx refers to Aristotle ("De Republica, ed. Bekker, lib. I, c. 8,9, passim. Works of Aristotle, Vol X, Oxford, 1921 'Politica', trs. B. Jowett, paras. 1256 and 1257). He explains that Aristotle distinguished between barter, which is a "means to an end" and "chrematistics". Chrematistics is an "end in itself" with unlimited possibility. Chrematistics is not exchanging in the sense of bartering to get hold of a commodity for self-use. Money made chrematistics possible; that is pursuing maximum profit without limit, via buying and selling. (Marx 1990: 252-254)

"Hence Aristotle says: 'Since chrematistics is a double science, one part belonging to commerce, the other to economics, the latter being necessary and praiseworthy, the former based on circulation and with justice disapproved (for it is not based on Nature, but on mutual cheating), the usurer is most rightly hated, because money itself is the source of his gain, and is not used for the purposes for which it was invented.' Aristotle, op cit. c. 10 [English translation, para. 1258b]" (Marx 1990:267)

"We have seen that the means of production transfer value to the new product only when during the labour process they lose value in the shape of their old use-value. The maximum loss of value the means of production can suffer in the process is plainly limited by the amount of the original value with which they entered into it, or, in other words, by the labour-time required to produce them. Therefore the means of production can never add more value to the product than they themselves possess independently of the process in which they assist." (Marx 1990:313-314) Marx excluded profit from the value added. The purchase price of the means was not considered. "Means" mean machines etc, not direct labour. Up to now in the book i have not seen anything that shows that Marx valued ideas. He did however analyse profit, which is "surplus-value" in his words (Marx 1990:324). Marx wrote that "surplus-value" originates from working longer working hours than necessary, to supply self with the necessary things to live. He wrote that it takes, fore example 6 hours per day to supply self with necessities. If a worker thus works 12 hours, the additional 6 hours accumulate into the selling value of the commodities of a producer/capitalist (Marx 1990:324-325). Marx ascribed profit only to a difference between necessary labour hours and necessary+surplus labour hours without considering effects ideas have on the time of necessary labour hours and consequentially on profit (Marx 1990:327-328).

"Moreover, the cooperation of wage-labourers is entirely brought about by the capital that employs them. Their unification into one single productive body, and the establishment of a connection between their individual functions, lies outside their competence. These things are not their own act, but the act of the capital that brings them together and maintains them in that situation. Hence the interconnection between their various labours confronts them, in the realm of ideas, as a plan drawn up by a capitalist, and, in practice, as his authority, as the powerful will of a being outside them, who subjects their activity to his purpose. If capitalist direction is thus twofold in content, owing to the twofold nature of the process of production which has to be directed - on the one hand a social labour process for the creation of a product, and on the other hand capital's process of valorization - in form it is purely despotic." (Marx 1990:449-450)

Marx explains a difference between production at old Indian rural societies and capitalist manufacturers. He wrote that at the Indian communities the system was static and all the land was held in community of property. Nobody was allowed to employ people in the Indian system because the community allocated the produce to, for example, a potter. In the capitalist system, capitalists have access to capital and land and can employ people. Traders, like others in the Indian system were not allowed to employ people and own land. Their power was thus limited. In India the people were however still controlled (influenced), it seems, from Marx writing, centrally, by, the 'elders' of a community, for example Brahmins etc. In India dynasties changed but the social structure of the 'communist' communities stayed static. At capitalism workers often don't have skills to make a whole product. They make parts of products and therefore their skills make them immobile and more subservient to their employer and potential employers. (Marx 1990:477-482)

One big difference between the two systems is the influence of new ideas. In the capitalist system new ideas are much more likely to develop because of many capitalists who can decide on courses of action to develop ideas. In the Indian "communist" system there was much less freedom to innovate, but on the other hand, according to Marx, people could not be employed by capitalists and was freer in that sense.

"It is a result of the division of labour in manufacture that the worker is brought face to face with the intellectual potentialities (geistige Potenzen) of the material process of production as the property of another and as a power which rules over him. This process of separation starts in simple co-operation, where the capitalist represents to the individual workers the unity and will of the whole body of social labour. It is developed in manufacture, which mutilates the worker, turning him into a fragment of himself. It is completed in large-scale industry, which makes science a potentiality of for production which is distinct from labour and presses it into the service of capital.[1] In manufacture, the social productive power of the collective worker, hence of capital, is enriched through the impoverishment of the worker in individual productive power. 'Ignorance is the mother of industry as well as of superstition. Reflection and fancy are subject to err; but a habit of moving the hand or the foot is independent of either. Manufactures, accordingly, prosper most where the mind is least consulted, and where the workshop may ... [Marx's ellipsis] be considered as an engine, the parts of which are men.'[2] As a matter of fact, in the middle of the eighteenth century some manufacturers preferred to employ semi-idiots for certain operations which, though simple, were trade secrets.[3]" (Marx 1990:482).

Marx was thus in favour of thinking and he identified the same problem, which Pienaar identified. The problem is that thinking is not motivated enough. The Communist system however, had the opposite effect of what Marx partly promoted. It seems Marx's solution or, solutions from how his work was interpreted, did not solve the problem he identified. Pienaar opines the reason was that Communism made ideas more commonly owned. Communists, for example abolished the church's patens; what did they do with patents? With Capitalism, although the availability of capital to develop ideas, is skewed, development happened more efficiently than at Communism. Pienaar's proposed solutions is thus to the opposite side of Communism's, according to his current knowledge. Currently, with Capitalism, ideas are appropriated and developed, benefitting a small part of society financially. Benefits, often, do not settle 'at all', at 'the' generators of ideas and therefore idea generations are not motivated. At Communism, it seems, benefits of idea generations were even further removed from generators, because ideas were regarded more socially Mind like than at Capitalism.

"The Holy Family (German: Die heilige Familie) is a book written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in November 1844. The book is a critique on the Young Hegelians and their trend of thought which was very popular in academic circles at the time. The title was a suggestion by the publisher and is meant as a sarcastic reference to the Bauer Brothers and their supporters. ... Later Marx will continue this sarcasm by referring to them as Saint Bruno, Saint Max (Stirner), etc."[4]

It seems Marx and Engels also suffered from Caiaphas syndrome because they sarcastically referred to "The Holy Family" in relation to opponents. According to Gareth Stedman Jones who wrote the Introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Engels praised Bauer after Bauer's death (Marx, Engels, 2002: 143).

" From 1839 to 1841, Bauer was a teacher, mentor and close friend of Karl Marx, but in 1841 they came to a break. Marx, with Friedrich Engels, had formulated a socialist and communistic program that Bruno Bauer firmly rejected. Marx and Engels in turn expressed their break with Bauer in two books: Holy Family (1845) and German Ideology (1846).... Bruno Bauer died at Rixdorf in 1882. His younger brother, Edgar, was a German left-wing journalist who had supported his brother's fights and was sent to prison for his political positions. He later became a police spy in London for the Danish government, reporting about Karl Marx, among others.... Bauer went underground and began to write Hegelian newspapers here and there. In this journey he met some socialists, including Karl Marx, his former student, and Marx' new friends, Friedrich Engels and Arnold Ruge."[5]

Gareth Stedman Jones wrote "The real questions involved in the mid 1840s debate over communism received little mention in the Manifesto. In particular, it would be quite impossible to detect the crucial role played by Proudhon in initiating the search for a modern social form that combined liberty and community." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 163)

Whilst sketching two opposing forces/groups, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx and Engels (2002: 223-224) wrote: "The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature."

It seems thus as if Marx and Engels regarded intellectual property in a national sense. As if they do not appreciate utilitarianism, but because Caiaphas syndrome was relevant they could not ascribe generation of ideas to individuals. The spirit of a nation (Hegelian?) was probably then to them important in the process of generations of ideas. On the other hand they promoted international workers' action, but the motive was international revolution to overthrow bourgeois production tactics.

About the bourgeoisie, they wrote: "It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image [own italics]. The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 224)

Marx and Engels described the bourgeoisie as a class closely linked to creativity, innovation and development of new products and production techniques. (Marx, Engels, 2002: 225)

"The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 228) Ascribing creativity to femininity, another sign of Caiaphas syndrome.

"All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 235)

"All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 238)

"The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 239)

"The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial... Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 240)

"What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes in character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 241)

Whist discrediting socialists Marx and Engels did not appreciate, they wrote about "Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism" that; "Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive [own italics] action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class organization of the proletariat to an organization of society specially contrived by these inventors [own italics]... They still dream of experimental realization of their social Utopias .. of the New Jerusalem -- and to realize all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois." (Marx, Engels, 2002: 254-256)

"Science, generally speaking, costs the capitalist nothing, a fact that by no means prevents him from exploiting it." (Marx 1990:508) In the same way that Marx and Engels above in the Communist Manifesto wrote negatively about "inventors", Marx, here, said capitalists did not value the work of scientists. Pienaar understands what he means, but Marx's meaning is contradicting because on the one hand he writes negatively about innovation but on the other hand, he criticizes capitalism because capitalists do not ascribe value to science/ideas. Inventors/scientists also have living expenses, which must be financed. The scientific applications, which use nature he wrote about, did not fall out of the air, and new inventions, which are or should be financed, take place continuously. It is this view of Marx, also prevalent at some capitalists, which partly caused "the stranger" of Kearney, "the other", "the individual" of the humanities. Coletto, with his philosophy against progress, is a good example of current views, which are similar to part of Marx's views. Marx blamed capitalists for joblessness. Capitalist politicians still place much attention on job creation although jobs are becoming less, due to innovation. The current Davos congress in Switzerland promotes a "4th Industrial Revolution" with artificial intelligence, whilst capitalist politicians do not acknowledge the impact on job opportunities. Marx should have criticized the politicians more than "inventors" because the politicians did not keep track with innovation through their policies. There can never be enough 'jobs' (current definition of 'job') for everybody except, in an apocalyptic eschatological view where catastrophes balance population numbers with job opportunities. Marx promoted revolution by force in line with apocalyptic views and he promoted a world in which a man can fish and hunt on the same day, similar to ancient societies. Politicians should rather make available, food, accommodation, sports and arts facilities, etc. to the unemployed, for them to have a dignified life. Some people, with sports and arts, these days, contribute much to GDPs. Dignity should not be coupled 'solely' with being 'employed'. Dignity brings population growths down. Modern Western countries showed this. It can also be argued that there was more 'dignity' amongst old American Indian societies and African societies, before colonization, than after, resulting in sustainable population growths and therefore the imbalance between subsistence and population numbers was not then such a big problem. Dignity, perhaps comes thus before sustainable population growths.

Ideas can be common property in reality, if everyone has dignity via financial security, and dignity according to their abilities, because, then there are no needs to get financial security from ideas. If a group of people are working together and they all have financial security and dignity, according to their means, they can freely share ideas and work together on the development of those ideas. If some of the group are excluded from financial security and dignity and an excluded generates a good idea he/she might not share in the desserts following the idea. The desserts are the financial security and the dignity the idea will bring. Therefore, he/she can withhold the idea from the group. It seems thus that in a community where everyone has dignity and financial security, ideas will flow more freely. Problems however occur if people each want to be seen as a generator of good ideas, even if they aren't. If an idea wasn't, "it was my idea", they each can claim. Then deceivers can portray themselves as generators of ideas, which they appropriated from others, which will inhibit free flow of ideas. On the other hand, in a community with dignity and financial security, maybe, ideas will not be forthcoming, because of the financial security and dignity. Maybe that is what happened in pre-colonial America and Africa and that is why science did not progress there. This view however, Pienaar doubts because much innovation took place by people with financial security and dignity in the past, for example in Europe. It could also be that in pre-colonial America and Africa there was not enough correspondence to reality to cause scientific inventions.

"Machinery, like every other component of constant capital, creates no new value, but yields up its own value to the product it serves to beget." (Marx 1990:509) According to Marx, machines add not value because machines do not need subsistence like people. People add value when they work longer than the hours they need to work to supply themselves with necessary subsistence, according to Marx.

"'If', dreamed Aristotle, the greatest thinker of antiquity,.. And Antipater, a Greek poet of the time of Cicero, hailed the waterwheel for grinding corn, that most basic form of all productive machinery, as the liberator of female slaves and the restorer of the golden age. Oh those heathens! They understood nothing of political economy and Christianity, as the learned Bastiat discovered, and before him the still wiser MacCulloch." (Marx 1990:532-533)

Whilst Marx explained his opinion about how capital form after an investment of £10,000 and a production process, which caused profit of £2,000, he wrote: "The original capital was formed by the advance of £10,000. Where did its owner get it from? 'From his own labour and that of his forefathers', is the unanimous answer of the spokesmen of political economy. And, in fact, their assumption appears to be the only one consonant with the laws of commodity production. But it is quite otherwise with regard to the additional capital of £2,000. We know perfectly well how that originated. There is not one single atom of its value that does not owe its existence to unpaid labour." (Marx 1990:728) Marx clearly did not consider the value of ideas and not even the value of networking here. An idea and a network of the capitalist, employing the labour could have contributed substantially to the £ 2 000.

"We arrive, therefore, at this general result: by incorporating with itself the two primary creators [own bold] of wealth, labour-power and land, capital acquires a power of expansion that permits it to augment the elements of its accumulation beyond the limits apparently fixed by its own magnitude, or by the value and the mass of the means of production which have already been produced, and in which it has its being." (Marx 1990:752)

"Like the increased exploitation of natural wealth resulting from the simple act of increasing the pressure under which labour-power has to operate, science and technology give capital a power of expansion which is independent of the given magnitude of the capital actually functioning. They react at the same time on that part of the original capital which has entered the stage of its renewal. This, in passing into its new shape, incorporates, free of charge, the social advances made while its old shape was being used up." (Marx 1990:754) Marx realised the value of free ideas, but he wrote negatively about innovation. During his time labour practices were very inhuman and logically there were other problems than remuneration for ideas, which he and communists prioritised. If they prioritised good ideas, without falling for Caiaphas syndrome, maybe matters could have been different in Communist Russia.

"Since past labour always disguises itself as capital, i.e. since the debts owed to the labour of A, B, C etc. are disguised as the assets of the non-worker X, bourgeois citizens and political economists are full of praise for the services performed by past labour, which, according to that Scottish genius MacCulloch, ought indeed to receive a special remuneration in the shape of interest, profit, etc.[6]"(Marx 1990:757) Marx seems to have been in two minds about MacCulloch because some places he praises him, maybe sarcastically, and elsewhere he does not agree with MacCulloch.

"Let me remind the reader here that I was the first to use the categories 'variable capital' and 'constant capital'." (Marx 1990:760) Variable capital was used by Marx to refer only to labour. Variable material, in today's cost accounting language, for example, was regarded as constant capital by Marx.

"Capital can grow into powerful masses in a single hand in one place, because in other places it has been withdrawn from many individual hands. In any given branch of industry centralization would reach its extreme limit if all the individual capitals invested there were fused into a single capital.[7] In a given society this limit would be reached only when the entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single capitalist or a single capitalist company." (Marx 1990:779) This "social capital" Marx refers to is basically knowledge as represented by technologically advanced machinery and methods. His view of capitalist ends is thus a return to a feudalistic type of environment in which kings of territories and church leaders of territories controlled the intellectual creativities, which were generated by different people. His view is thus an apocalyptic Christian view.

"The additional capitals formed in the normal course of accumulation (see Chapter 24, Section 1) serve above all as vehicles for the exploitation of new inventions and discoveries, and industrial improvements in general. But in time the old capital itself reaches the point where it has to be renewed in all its aspects, a time when it sheds its skin and is reborn like the other capitals in a perfected technical shape, in which a smaller quantity of labour will suffice to set in motion a larger quantity of machinery and raw material. The absolute reduction in the demand for labour which necessarily follows from this is obviously so much the greater, the higher the degree to which the capitals undergoing this process of renewal are already massed together by virtue of the movement towards centralization." (Marx 1990:780) Someone recently on one of the big DSTV international news channels highlighted a problem of few jobs by recognizing that when machines do most production and few people earn salaries, few people can buy products, with a negative effect on economies. A question can be asked whether this could lead to less food production and more production of luxury products for the few who are earning income.

"Earl Shaftesbury, then Lord Ashley, was the protagonist of the aristocratic philanthropic campaign against the factories. ... The villages are the property of Mr G. Bankes and the Earl of Shaftesbury. It will be noted that, just like Bankes, the pope of the Low Church, the head of the English pietists, also pockets a large part of the miserable wages of the labourers under the pretext of the rent of their houses." (Marx 1990:831) Thomas Maier of Draftex, Viersen, Germany told me that all their employees are subject to involuntary "tax" deductions from their salaries, which are paid over to the Church. This statement by Marx can perhaps be understood together with my opinion that churches are often glorified labour brokers. Coupled with the gathering of ideas and consequential development as understood with Socrates's statements in the Republic about 'gods' who generate good ideas, the statements of Maier and Marx get new meaning.

Hitler started his book by explaining the discrepant conditions, which the upper class and lowest class lived under, in Vienna. The conditions explained are similar to the conditions Marx explained.

"What affected us most bitterly was the consciousness of the fact that this whole system was morally shielded by the alliance with Germany, whereby the slow extirpation of Germanism in the old Austrian Monarchy seemed in some way to be more or less sanctioned by Germany herself. Habsburg hypocrisy, which endeavoured outwardly to make the people believe that Austria still remained a German State, increased the feeling of hatred against the Imperial House and at the same time aroused a spirit of rebellion and contempt." (Hitler 1939:27)

"The Goddess of Fate [own bold] clutched me in her hands and often threatened to smash me; but the [own bold] will grew stronger as the obstacles increased, and finally the will triumphed. ... It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism." (Hitler 1939:31)

"Just as Nature [own bold] concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation--which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred--and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development. During my struggle for existence in Vienna I perceived very clearly that the aim of all social activity must never be merely charitable relief [own bold], which is ridiculous and useless, but it must rather be means to find a way of eliminating the fundamental deficiencies in our economic and cultural life--deficiencies which necessarily bring out the degradation of the individual [own bold] or at least lead him towards such degradation. ... When the individual [own bold] is no longer burdened with his own consciousness of blame in this regard, then and only then will he have that inner tranquillity and outer force to cut off drastically and ruthlessly all the parasite growth and root out the weeds." (Hitler 1939:38) It looks as if Hitler's reference to "the individual" could mean he also suffered from Caiaphas syndrome, especially read together with his statement about "consciousness of blame" about degradation.

Hitler did not agree with the views of manual labourers and was thrown and intimidated off a building site, where he worked. (Hitler 1939:46)

"The psyche of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. Like a woman whose inner sensibilities are not so much under the sway of abstract reasoning but are always subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes her being, and who would rather bow to the strong man than dominate the weakling--in like manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a liberal choice." (Hitler 1939:48) This statement makes it seem as if Hitler did not have a powerful God, although he did appreciate "abstract" reason, which is a contradiction.

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human C existence and human civilization." (Hitler 1939:65-66) The capital "C" after "human" was typed at the bottom left corner of p. 65; "human" is thus the last word on p. 65.

"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord." (Hitler 1939:66)

"Apart from the new artistic trash, which might easily have been produced by a negro tribe, all genuine artistic inspiration came from the German section of the population." (Hitler 1939:71) Hitler was without a doubt racist.

"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual [own bold] personality." (Hitler 1939:79) Why not brains of individuals' personalities?

"Here, as everywhere else, strength does not lie in defence but in attack." (Hitler 1939:133) According to my logic God are the strongest force and only attack if attacked. Is provoking attacking? It depends on the intention. Was the intention to "start a fight"? A party who started a fight is a guilty party. In law provocation can be assault.

"If we consider the question of what those forces actually are which are necessary to the creation and preservation of a State, we shall find that they are: The capacity and readiness to sacrifice the individual to the common welfare." (Hitler 1939:138) Earlier in the book Hitler wrote that States exist for individuals and individuals not for States or something in that line, which seems like a contradiction, with regard to his opinion about sacrifice of individuals.

"Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue to be the destruction of all non-Jewish national States, had to witness in those days of July 1914 how the German working classes, which it had been unveigling (sic), were aroused by the national spirit and rapidly ranged themselves on the side of the Fatherland." (Hitler 1939:150) It is difficult to understand this statement because Marx opposed capitalism clearly. Jewish business is very much part of capitalism.

Hitler referred often to "Weltanschauung", which was explained by James Murphy, the translator, to be an ""Outlook on the World"". Murphy wrote it is a "totalitarian" view for example "Christianity" and "Mohammedanism". (Hitler 1939:13) It thus relates to the tension between nominalism and realism. Hitler's totalitarianism and his disrespect for non-nationalist views is clearly visible in the book. Hitler often refers to honesty in a positive way and wrote that Jews in a group sense deceive, but the question remains so far whether the honesty he writes about is understood in a nominalist sense or a sense of realism, which allows nominalist subjective deceits, in order to keep his totalitarian outlook in place. Up to page 150 he has not addressed this question. It seems, so far, that he did not realise no one can ever perceive the whole of the world as a datum. Individuals like him are dangerous if they gather support. On the other hand groups can also be dangerous and in effect "Hitler" became a group. Maybe it is how nature works; different dangerous groups eventually wipe each other out, and other people carry on.

"But there is something else to be said: Every Weltanschauung, whether religious or political--and it is sometimes difficult to say where the one ends and the other begins--fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing world of ideas as for the positive realization of its own ideas. Thus its struggle lies in attack rather than in defence." (Hitler 1939:153) In my understanding of these words it is a contradiction because "negative destruction" is attacking and "positive realization" is not attacking, but rather defensive of nature.

"The name of the new movement which was to be founded should be such that, of itself, it would appeal to the mass of the people; for all our efforts would turn out vain and useless if this condition were lacking. And that was the reason why we chose the name 'Social-Revolutionary Part,' particularly because the social principles of our new organization were indeed revolutionary." (Hitler 1939:180) Hitler then carries on like Marx to say that his focus was on living conditions due to economic policy. He wrote that the economic policy of the time was confused because it was based on one basic idea, which claimed that all capital is the result of only labour. (Hitler 1939:180)

About himself as politician after the 1st World War he took part in as a soldier Hitler (1939:183) wrote: "I clearly saw what was developing in Germany and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital."

"It is true that a section of the German industrialists made a determined attempt to avert the danger, but in the end they gave way before the united attacks of money-grabbing capitalism, which was assisted in this fight by its faithful henchman in the Marxist movement." (Hitler 1939:201)

In "Chapter XI: Race and People" where Hitler explained it is an unforgivable sin when "strong" people mate with "weak" people, he wrote that all humans are subservient to nature and 'the Creator', but he contradicted himself: "He never creates anything [own bold]. All he can do is to discover something. ... for the idea itself has come only from man. Without man there would be no human idea in this world. It is to the creative powers of man's imagination [own bold] that such ideas owe their existence." (Hitler 1939:240-241)

"The movement must use all possible means to cultivate respect for the individual personality. It must never forget that all human values are based on personal values, and that every idea and achievement is the fruit of the creative power of one man. ... But the Jew tries to degrade the honour in which nations hold their great men and women. He stigmatizes this honour as the 'cult of personality.'" (Hitler 1939:295) It is not clear how Hitler reconciles his previous statement about sacrifice of "the individual" for statehood with this statement. Did he write about self-sacrifice by "the individual" or sacrifice by groups of individuals? With regard to Jewish media "taking the piss" out of leaders; do they do the same with their own leaders and 'icons'? Have not seen degrading media about Moses, Abraham etc., for example.

Whilst explaining the movement of the German National Socialist Labour Party, Hitler wrote: "Out of the army of millions who feel the truth of these ideas, and even may understand them to some extent, one man must arise. This man must have the gift of being able to expound general ideas in a clear and definite form and, from the world of vague ideas shimmering before the minds of the masses, he must formulate principles that will be as clear-cut and firm as granite. He must fight for these ideas as the only true ones, until a solid rock of common faith and common will emerges above the troubled waves of vagrant ideas. The general justification of such action is to be sought in the necessity for it and the [own bold] individual will be justified by his success." (Hitler 1939:320) Although most liberal arts people write about "the individual" and mean plural, it seems Hitler actually meant singularity here with "the individual." Those who write in singular form and means plural are wrong because what they write is false. Hitler's conception was false because he did not realize the fact about weakness of singularity.

Hitler wrote that an important difference between his views and those of Marxism is that Marxism does not value "individuals", without the "the". (Hitler 1939:320) It seems he valued individualism of "individuals" but the idea of the one and only, which was propagated by Platonic philosophy about essence, devalues his valuing of individuals in the plural. The two ideas are contradicting, because existence of a one and only devalues existence of each individual who is not a one and only. An idea, which fit together with another idea support the other idea, it does not devalue the other idea. Truth and love (social contract theory) are two ideas, which work together, without degrading the other of the two ideas. Valid social contract theory will promote protection of each individual, irrespective of race, so that all people can compete with one another in an ordered society.

Hitler wrote "race" is the "foundation" of a "State"; he did not refer to social contract theory as the foundation of a state or sovereign here, according to the view of philosophers for example Thomas Hobbes, who gave a good explanation of a social contract in The Leviathan, albeit also with too much emphasis on an individual king as sovereign. Hobbes did however acknowledge the possibility of sovereignty in the plural form, who enforce a social contract (Hitler 1939:320)."

Another contradiction in Hitler's discourse is that on page 320 he seems to place ideas of his one and only highest. On page 321 he wrote that the idea of a supreme race is highest. What if a person or persons of another race than Aryans, apply Hitler's ideas better than Aryans? What is therefore Hitler's priority? Is it ideas or race? It seems it was the idea about a supreme race. I guess Hitler would have said that no other race would be able to apply the ideas he was promulgating. Hitler thought about essence. If he did not think about an essence maybe he would not have contradicted himself. I guess i made the mistake as well before i realized truth needs at least one other idea, love (not breaking the law/social contract theory). Not the idea, love, nor the idea, truth, can function on its own properly.

"The völkisch belief holds that humanity must have its ideals, because ideals are a necessary condition of human existence itself. But, on the other hand, it denies that an ethical ideal has the right to prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal." (Hitler 1939:321) With this argument Jewish people who promulgates higher ethical ideas than Hitler's, can nullify Hitler's ideas, with his own philosophy.

"Remarks that are made without any sense of responsibility are thoughtlessly repeated from mouth to mouth; and our economic welfare is continually damaged because important methods of production are thus disclosed. Secret preparations for our national defence are rendered illusory because our people have never learned the duty of silence." (Hitler 1939:347)

"A stock of knowledge packed into the brain will not suffice for the making of discoveries." (Hitler 1939:360)

"It was our nation's tragedy to have to fight for its existence under a Chancellor who was a dilly-dallying philosopher." (Hitler 1939:361)

Hitler promoted honesty and creativity but what did he mean by the words? "The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its origin to the ruses [own bold] and stratagems which man employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the struggle." (Hitler 1939:370) According to intequinism "ruses" act against root creativities because parts cannot be assembled with non-existent ruses. Ruses can however assist developments after imparting of ideas, but the culture, which does that, effectively, currently, sacrifice creators (generators of good ideas), by excluding us from development benefits.

"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence." (Hitler 1939:321) All Hitler's references to "the Creator", together with this statement, make him look like a utilitarian.

"Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community. ... Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through the hard struggle for existence itself. In this struggle there are many who break down and collapse and thereby show that they are not called by Destiny to fill the highest positions; and only very few are left who can be classed among the elect. In the realm of thought and of artistic creations, and even in the economic field, this same process of selection takes place, although--especially in the economic field--its operation is heavily handicapped. This same principle of selection rules in the administration of the State and in that department of power which personifies the organized military defence of the nation. ... It is only in political life that this very natural principle [own bold] has been completely excluded. ... The destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of the masses." (Hitler 1939:372)

"We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us--the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic." (Hitler 1939:411)

"The prelude to the revolution that laid the foundation of the capitalist mode of production was played out in the last third of the fifteenth century and the first few decades of the sixteenth. A mass of 'free' and unattached proletarians was hurled onto the labour-market by the dissolution of the bands of feudal retainers, who, as Sir James Steuart correctly remarked, 'everywhere uselessly filled house and castle'. Although the royal power, itself a product of bourgeois development, forcibly hastened the dissolution of these bands of retainers in its striving for absolute sovereignty, it was by no means the sole cause of it. It was rather that the great feudal lords, in their defiant opposition to the king and Parliament, created an incomparably larger proletariat by forcibly driving the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal title as the lords themselves, and by usurpation of the common lands." (Marx, 1990:878)

"Tuckett knew that the large-scale wool industry had sprung, with the introduction of machinery, from manufacture proper and from the destruction of rural or domestic manufactures (Tuckett, John Debell, A History of the Past and Present State of the Labouring Population, including the Progress of Agriculture, Manufactures, and Commerce, Vol 1, London 1846. pp. 139-144) 'The plough, the yoke, were the invention of gods, and the occupation of heroes; are the loom, the spindle, the distaff, of less noble parentage? You sever the distaff and the plough, the spindle and the yoke, and you get factories and poor-houses, credit and panics, two hostile nations, agricultural and commercial' (Urquhart, David. Familiar Words as Affecting England and the English, London, 1855. p.122)." (Marx, 1990:912)

"At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to those governments. Hence the accumulation of the national debt has no more infallible measure than the successive rise in the stocks of these banks, whose full development dates from the founding of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England began by lending its money to the government at 8 per cent; at the time it was empowered by the Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it a second time to the public in the form of bank-notes. It was allowed to use these notes for discounting bills, making advances on commodities and buying the precious metals. ... Gradually it became the inevitable receptacle of the metallic hoard of the country, and the centre of gravity of all commercial credit." (Marx, 1990:919)

The average for the class as a whole remains more or less constant, like the value of all commodities; but this is not how it immediately appears to the individual worker whose wages may stand above or below this minimum. The price of labour sometimes sinks below and sometimes rises above the value of labour-power. Furthermore, there is scope for variation (within narrow limits) to allow for the worker's individuality, so that partly as between different trades, partly in the same one, we find that wages vary depending on the diligence, skill or strength of the worker, and to some extent on his actual personal achievement. Thus the size of his wage packet appears to vary in keeping with the results of his own work and its individual quality. This is particularly evident in the case of piece rates. Although, as we have shown, the latter do not affect the general relationship between capital and labour, between necessary labour and surplus labour, the result differs for the individual worker, and it does so in accordance with his particular achievement. In the case of the slave, great physical strength or a special talent may enhance his value to a purchaser, but this is of no concern to him. It is otherwise with the free worker who is the owner of his labour-power." (Marx, 1990:1032)

From the standpoint of capitalist production we may add the qualification that labour is productive if it directly valorizes capital, or creates surplus-value. That is to say, it is productive if it is realized in a surplus-value without any equivalent for the worker, its creator [own bold]; it must appear in surplus produce, i.e. an additional increment of a commodity on behalf of the monopolizer of the means of labour, the capitalist. (Marx, 1990:1038)

Marx acknowledged the problem whereby new technology causes joblessness and acknowledged the difference between the active labouring population and the inactive population due to lack of jobs. (Marx, 1990:1049)

"All this conflicts with, for example, the antiquated view typical of earlier modes of production according to which the city authorities would, for instance, prohibit inventions so as not to deprive workers of their livelihood." (Marx, 1990:1050)

"to be crowned king of the bourgeoisie." (Marx, 1990:1051) This statement repeats Marx's previous reference, which links monarchy and bourgeoisie systems. The criterion he gave "to be crowned" was a sarcastic reference to lending money to a foreign nation instead of employing workers locally.

Maurice Cranston wrote: "He [Rousseau] had been born in Geneva on 28 June 1712, the second son of Isaac Rousseau, a spirited and irresponsible watchmaker of that city." (Rousseau 1968:9). "His friend [Diderot] encouraged him [Rousseau] to enter for the essay competition, and uphold the opinion that the revival of the arts and sciences had only corrupted morals. Diderot did not agree with this at all, but he was a born journalist, and he suggested that such unfashionable belief would distinguish Rousseau from the other competitors and capture the prize. Diderot was right. Rousseau submitted his essay and won; henceforth, whether he liked it or not, he was a famous man." (Rousseau 1968:15)

Maurice Cranston wrote: "Now Rousseau not only rejects Hobbes's claim that men must choose between being free and being ruled, he positively asserts that it is only through living in civil society that men can experience their fullest freedom. This is the connexion between freedom and virtue. Here we may detect a modification of the argument of the Discours sur l'inégalité. In the earlier work Rousseau stresses both the freedom and the innocence of man in a state of nature. In the Social Contract he still says that men have freedom in the state of nature, but he treats it as a freedom of a crude and lesser kind." (Rousseau 1968:28)

Maurice Cranston wrote: "The jurisconsults and Hobbes and Lcoke all rejected the well-established theories that sovereignty was based on nature or on divine right, and they argued in one way or another, that sovereignty derived its authority from the assent of the people." (Rousseau 1968:30) I guess this is where the bourgeoisie comes in. They effectively chose a king for them during those times. Therefore logically the bourgeoisie and the church, which crowned kings, were interlinked.

Maurice Cranston opines that Rousseau, when he wrote in the Social Contract about "forcing a man to be free", meant it with regard to someone who breaks "the law" or "the general will, within him. The general will is something inside each man as well as in society as a whole, so that the man who is coerced by the community for a breach of the law, is, in Rousseau's view of things, being brought back to an awareness of his own true will." (Rousseau 1968:35)

"I have said nothing of the King Adam or of the Emperor Noah, father of the three great monarchs who shared out the universe between them, like the children of Saturn, with whom some authors have identified them. I hope my readers will be grateful for this moderation, for since I am directly descended from one of those princes, and perhaps in the oldest line, how do I know that if the deeds were checked, I might not find myself the legitimate king of the human race?" (Rousseau 1968:52)

Rousseau thought men are peaceful until property enters the equation. "It is conflicts over things" between nations, "not quarrels between men, which constitute war, and the state of war cannot arise from mere personal relations, but only from property relations." (Rousseau 1968:55) Did he have the war of Troy in mind, with regard to Helen when he wrote this?

"EVEN if I were to concede all that I have so far refuted, the champions of despotism would be no better off. There will always be a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society." (Rousseau 1968:58)

"'How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.' This is the fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution." (Rousseau 1968:60)

"The sovereign" according to Rousseau is the group of people who combines their powers in a single "body politic". According to Rousseau their power is ultimate power without any constraint. (Rousseau 1968:64) If a member thus decides to not do what the group decide such a member "shall be forced to be free". (Rousseau 1968:64) The problem with Rousseau's theory is that he posits the power of the "body politic" ultimate without restraint. They can thus sacrifice persons outside of the group for their own gain or do something illegal together. If a member decides to not go along then he/she can be excommunicated, whilst being within 'the law', of having certain ideas like Truth and universal Love above all, including the sovereign. The crux is thus whether sovereignty is above good ideas or, good ideas above the sovereign.

"Their very lives, which they have pledged to the state, are always protected by it; and even when they risk their lives to defend the state, what more are they doing but giving back what they have received from the state? What are they doing that they would not do more often, and at great peril, in the state of nature, where every man is inevitably at war and at the risk of his life, defends whatever serves him to maintain life?" (Rousseau 1968:77)

'"Republican'": "By this word I understand not only an aristocracy or democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is law. If it is to be legitimate, the government must not be united with the sovereign, but must serve it as its ministry. So even a monarchy can be a republic" (Rousseau 1968:82)

Rousseau distinguished between "law", which is universal and for example, decrees, which are not universal. The "general will" of the body politic, served by the government, is thus identified with universal laws, which are good for every member of the sovereign (body politic). But how is this "general will" determined? Primarily by a "lawgiver" who writes a constitution and who acts via "Gods"; Such lawgivers are usually not part of the body-politic, for example Greek lawgivers who wrote constitutions for republics. (Rousseau 1968:80-91) "Gods would be needed to give men laws." (Rousseau 1968:84) Elsewhere Rousseau wrote that if the body-politic do not complain, it is implied that the general will accept something. This means only mass action can revert a non-universal law. Also, a necessary consideration is, who exactly is this body politic? Is "a general will" not pie in the sky today? Rousseau appreciated the old types of governments of small republics where all the people came together with assemblies and discussed the issues of the time, whilst also making laws. He wrote that monarchies suit large republics and that there has never been a good king.

Rousseau wrote the highest and most important law, not written down, which keeps the other laws in place relates to, "above all, belief: this feature, unknown to our political theorists, is the one on which the success of all the other laws depends; it is the feature on which the great lawgiver bestows his secret care, for though he seems to confine himself to detailed legal enactments, which are really only the arching of the vault, he knows that morals, which develop more slowly, ultimately become its immovable keystone." (Rousseau 1968:99)

"So far we have considered the prince as a collective and artificial person, unified by the force of the law and acting as trustee of executive power in the state." (Rousseau 1968:116) Rousseau used metaphors, and mixed singular and plural, which make it very difficult to determine what he meant. Although he refers to elections, "a method which makes honesty, sagacity, experience and all the other grounds of popular preference and esteem further guarantees of wise government" (Rousseau 1968:115), with regard to aristocracy, his use of metaphors and mixing of singular and plural, seem to have made his views incoherent. There is however one definition he uses consistently and that is that all the people of a state are "the sovereign" together.

Rousseau praised "Machiavelli's Prince" as a "handbook for republicans". (Rousseau 1968:118) It is not certain whether Rousseau subscribed to the methods, promoted by Machiavelli in the book.

"As for despotism, instead of governing the subjects in order to make them happy, it makes them miserable in order to govern them." (Rousseau 1968:125)

"Just as the particular will acts unceasingly against the general will, so does the government continually exert itself against the sovereign. And the more this exertion increases, the more the constitution changes for the worse, and, as in this case there is no distinct corporate will to resist the will of the prince and so to balance it, sooner or later it is inevitable that the prince will oppress the sovereign and break the social treaty." (Rousseau 1968:131) I think this statement shows that Rousseau's views were a precursor to communism.

On the other hand Rousseau wrote in opposition to communism: "The cooling-off of patriotism, the activity of private interest, the vastness of states, conquests, the abuse of government - al these have suggested the expedient of having deputies or representatives of the people in the assemblies of the nation." (Rousseau 1968:141)

"I am very far from sharing received ideas: I believe that compulsory service is less contrary to liberty than is taxation." (Rousseau 1968:140)

"Once when a man of bad character put forward a good idea in the council of Sparta, the Ephors, ignoring him, had the same thing proposed by a virtuous citizen. What an honour for the one, what a disgrace for the other; yet neither praise nor blame was given to either." (Rousseau 1968:175)

"It should be noted that it is not so much the formal assemblies, like those of France, which bind the clergy together in a body, but rather the communion of churches. Communion and excommunication are the social compact of the clergy, one through which they will always be the masters of peoples and kings. All the priests who communicate together are fellow citizens, even though they are at opposite ends of the earth. This invention is a masterpiece of politics. There was nothing like it among the pagan priests; hence they never constituted a body of clergy." (Rousseau 1968:180)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"'TIS OF MAN I am to speak; and the very question, in answer to which I am to speak of him, sufficiently informs me that I am going to speak to men; for those alone, who are not afraid of honouring truth, it belongs to propose discussions of this kind." (Rousseau 2004:1)

"What therefore is precisely the subject of this discourse? It is to point out, in the progress of things, that moment, when, right taking place of violence, nature became subject to law; to display that chain of surprising events, in consequence of which the strong submitted to serve the weak, and the people to purchase imaginary ease, at the expense of real happiness." (Rousseau 2004:2)

"It is therefore certain that pity is a natural sentiment, which, by moderating in every individual the activity of self-love, contributes to the mutual preservation of the whole species. It is this pity which hurries us without reflection to the assistance of those we see in distress; it is this pity which, in a state of nature, stands for laws, for manners, for virtue, with this advantage, that no one is tempted to disobey her sweet and gentle voice: it is this pity which will always hinder a robust savage from plundering a feeble child, or infirm old man, of the subsistence they have acquired with pain and difficulty, if he has but the least prospect of providing for himself by any other means: it is this pity which, instead of that sublime maxim of argumentative justice, Do to others as you would have others do to you, inspires all men with that other maxim of natural goodness a great deal less perfect, but perhaps more useful, Consult your own happiness with as little prejudice as you can to that of others. It is in a word, in this natural sentiment, rather than in fine-spun arguments, that we must look for the cause of that reluctance which every man would experience to do evil, even independently of the maxims of education." (Rousseau 2004:21)

Rousseau seems to oppose the universal idea of doing to others, as self wants to be done to. He replaces the idea with pity. Pity is a patronizing emotion, which promotes dependence. Pity is guilt from tyrannical appropriation of too much. Being pitied is degrading and those who put others in situations where they then pity the others get pleasure from feeling pity, because feeling pity sometimes makes them feel superior. Pity is an emotion of ethos opposing theos.

"In this new state of things, the simplicity and solitariness of man's life, the limitedness of his wants, and the instruments which he had invented to satisfy them, leaving him a great deal of leisure, he employed it to supply himself with several conveniences unknown to his ancestors; and this was the first yoke he inadvertently imposed upon himself, and the first source of mischief which he prepared for his children; for besides continuing in this manner to soften both body and mind, these conveniences having through use lost almost all their aptness to please, and even degenerated into real wants, the privation of them became far more intolerable than the possession of them had been agreeable; to lose them was a misfortune, to possess them no happiness." (Rousseau 2004:31)

Marx; K. 1990. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume One. London: Penguin Classics

Marx; K, & Engels; F. 2002. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Classics.

[1] "'The man of knowledge and the productive labourer come to be widely divided from each other, and knowledge, instead of remaining the handmaid of labour in the hand of the labourer to increase his productive powers ... [Marx's ellipsis] has almost everywhere arrayed itself against labour.' 'Knowledge' becomes 'an instrument, capable of being detouched from labour and opposed to it' (W. Thompson, An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth, London, 1824, p.274)" (Marx 1990:482).

[2] "A. Ferguson, History of Civil Society, Edinburgh, 1767, Part IV, Section ii, p. 280" (Marx 1990:474,483).

[3] "J.D. Tuckett, A History of the Past and Present State of the Labouring Population, London, 1846, Vol. 1, p. 148." (Marx 1990:483)

[4] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Family_%28book%29 on 13 January 2016.

[5] From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer on 13 January 2016.

[6] "MacCulloch took out a patent on the 'wages of past labour' long before senior patented the 'wages of abstinence'. (J.R. MacCulloch, The Principles of Political Economy, London, 1825, p. 291: 'The profits of capital are only another name for the wages of accumulated labour.')" (Marx 1990:757)

[7] "[Note by Engels to the fourth German edition:] The latest English and American 'trusts' are already striving to attain this goal by attempting to unite at least all the large-scale concerns in one branch of industry into a single great joint-stock company with a practical monopoly." (Marx 1990:779)