Grundrisse: Footnotes
19. Cf. Hegel, Science of Logic (tr. A. V. Miller), p. 71: ‘That into which the movement returns as into its ground is (also) result.’
21. Marx wrote this sentence in English. The word ‘spurred’ is a suggested emendation in place of the word ‘occurred’ which appears in the original text.
22. J. R. MacCulloch (1789–1864), statistician and economist, editor of the Scotsman from 1818 to 1828, Professor of Political Economy in London from 1828 to 1832, ‘past master in pretentious cretinism’, ‘at once the vulgarizer of Ricardian economics and the most pitiful image of its dissolution’ (Marx).
23. MacCulloch, The Principles of Political Economy, Edinburgh, 1825, pp. 166–90.
24. James Mill, Éléments d’économie politique, Paris, 1823, pp. 250–60.
25. Bastiat et Proudhon, Gratuité du crédit, pp. 65–74. For Marx’s later discussions of the polemic between Bastiat and Proudhon, see pp. 640–41, 754–8, 843–5.
26. A reference to the pamphlet The Currency Question. The Gemini Letters, London, 1844, written by two upholders of the currency doctrines of the Birmingham banker Thomas Attwood, T. B. Wright and J. Harlow. See below, pp. 804–5.
27. Heinrich Friedrich Storch (1766–1835), Professor of Political Economy in the Russian Academy of Sciences at St Petersburg. Say issued Storch’s work Cours d’économie politique with critical notes in 1823; he attacked Say’s interpretation of his views in Considérations sur la nature du revenu national, Paris, 1824, pp. 144–59.
28. Malthus, Principles, p. 405; Definitions, pp. 258–9. Sismondi, Études, Vol. I, p. 61 n.
29. ‘Socialistically’: in the manner of the early utopian socialists, in particular John Gray; see above, pp. 153–6.
30. Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy, pp. 80–85.
31. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, pp. 244–6.
32. Thomas Hodgskin (1787–1869) was a socialist journalist and agitator active in the 1820s. In his economic works he developed the socialist implications in Ricardo’s theory of value, in particular in Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital (1825) and Popular Political Economy (1827).
33. Hodgskin, Popular Political Economy, pp. 245–6.
34. The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties, London, 1821, pp. 17–18.
35. An Inquiry into those Principles Respecting the Nature of Demand and the Necessity of Consumption Lately Advocated by Mr Malthus, anonymous pamphlet, London, 1821, p. 59.
36. Hodgskin, Popular Political Economy, p. 238.
38. Malthus, Principles of Political Economy, pp. 266, 301, 302, 315, 372–82, in part paraphrased by Marx.
39. ibid., p. 405, note by the editor, William Otter.
40. ibid., p. 414, note by Malthus.
41. See above, p. 411, and note 24.
42. Say, Traité d’économie politique, pp. 142–56.
43. Marx wrote ‘not else’ in English here.
44. Bastiat et Proudhon, Gratuité du crédit, pp. 207–8.
45. For Bastiat’s view, see Gratuité du crédit, pp. 127–32.
46. Marx wrote 4 9/20 thalers when he meant to write 4 10/20 thalers. This naturally affects the subsequent calculations, which should be amended as follows: 80 lb. at 4 10/20 thalers a pound = 360 thalers. 360 thalers + 90 = 270. 270 − 216 = 54. 360 − 54 = 306. 54 represents 15% profit on 360 thalers.
47. The substitution of ‘wheat’ for ‘grain’ here and at subsequent points has no bearing on Marx’s argument. He uses the two words interchangeably.
48. Samuel Jones Loyd (1796–1883, banker and economist, expert witness before the Parliamentary Commissions of 1833, 1840, 1848, and 1857, author of numerous pamphlets on money and banking, leading theorist of the Currency School in the controversy over Peel’s Act of 1844, created Baron Overstone in 1860). The source of this quotation has not been found; it is most probably from the Evidence Presented to the House of Commons Select Committee of 1857, ed. J. R. MacCulloch, London, 1858.
49. Cf. Hegel, Science of Logic, pp. 344–7.
50. This sentence is in English in the original.
51. Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy, p. 139.
52. Cf. Hegel, Science of Logic, p. 600: ‘This universal Notion contains the three moments: universality, particularity, and individuality.’