What do you think?
Rate this book
Cuadernos de Pasado y Presente #1
Preface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy
Umberto La crítica marxiana de la economía política en la Einleitung / Karl Introducción general a la crítica de la economía política de 1857 / Karl Marx y Friedrich Textos sobre problemas de método de la economía política.
63 pages, Unknown Binding
First published March 1, 1968
6 people are currently reading
209 people want to read
About the author
Karl Marx
3,204 books6,411 followersWith the help of Friedrich Engels, German philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx wrote
The Communist Manifesto
(1848) and
Das Kapital
(1867-1894), works, which explain historical development in terms of the interaction of contradictory economic forces, form many regimes, and profoundly influenced the social sciences.
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin in London opposed Communism of Karl Marx with his antithetical anarchy.
Works of Jacques Martin Barzun include Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1941).
The Prussian kingdom introduced a prohibition on Jews, practicing law; in response, a man converted to Protestantism and shortly afterward fathered Karl Marx.
Marx began co-operating with Bruno Bauer on editing Philosophy of Religion of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see Democritus and Epicurus), doctoral thesis, also engaged Marx, who completed it in 1841. People described the controversial essay as "a daring and original piece... in which Marx set out to show that theology must yield to the superior wisdom." Marx decided to submit his thesis not to the particularly conservative professors at the University of Berlin but instead to the more liberal faculty of University of Jena, which for his contributed key theory awarded his Philosophiae Doctor in April 1841. Marx and Bauer, both atheists, in March 1841 began plans for a journal, entitled Archiv des Atheismus (Atheistic Archives), which never came to fruition.
Marx edited the newspaper Vorwärts! in 1844 in Paris. The urging of the Prussian government from France banished and expelled Marx in absentia; he then studied in Brussels. He joined the league in 1847 and published.
Marx participated the failure of 1848 and afterward eventually wound in London. Marx, a foreigner, corresponded for several publications of United States.
He came in three volumes. Marx organized the International and the social democratic party.
Marx in a letter to C. Schmidt once quipped, "All I know is that I am not a Marxist," as Warren Allen Smith related in Who's Who in Hell .
People describe Marx, who most figured among humans. They typically cite Marx with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, the principal modern architects.
Bertrand Russell later remarked of non-religious Marx, "His belief that there is a cosmic ... called dialectical materialism, which governs ... independently of human volitions, is mere mythology" ( Portraits from Memory , 1956).
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bi...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 24, 2019
Okay I finally read this properly. and i was like Okay This is Epic
November 12, 2018
The Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy was the first part of Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, published in 1859. In this book, Marx is supposed to criticially examine the political economists of the time, mostly Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who both grew out of the Enlightenment ideas of reason, humanism and science.
In short, Smith was the first to make a comprehense sociological study of the wealth of nations. He analyzed his contemporary society (Britain, but also parts of Europe) and he concluded that a nation becomes wealthy not through corporatism, serfdom or guilds, but through individual freedom. When people can pursue their own economical interests, all will be better off. States or groups of people/companies should not control prices, levy taxes or put up barriers to foreign trade - only when a free market is allowed to exist, will supply and demand determine the true, fair price of everything.
Riccardo extended and deepened this approach, by explaining how, if everyone produced what he could do best, considering the circumstances, a benefit will arise for everyone. If Norway, due to climatic and natural circumstances, can produce salmon most effectively; and if France, due to similar circumstances, can produce wine cheapest and best; then, it pays both to trade goods. Only by specializing in what one does best, and trade the surplus goods (ultimately) for other goods, will a well-working economy be established. This presupposes free trade and free markets.
But, according to Marx, both Smith and Riccardo, while improving on earlier (seventeenth century) economic theories, fell into a trap. This is the trap of the Enlightenment: thinkers during this era started to critically examine their own societies, to compare this state of things to earlier moments, and to draw far-reaching conclusions from this comparison. According to Smith, political economy (or economics) is to be analyzed through the lens of property: capital, labour and land are the generators of wealth - interest & profit, wages and rent, respectively.
But, while an improvement on the earlier physiocrats (who claimed that land is the only means of production - a common mistake in agricultural societies), this is a fallacy. Smith, in effect, studies historical development through the lens of contemporary society. Capital, the factor that by the time of Smith's writing, started to determine social relationships, but this was in itself the end result (!) of earlier historical development. Historically, everything started with property - mostly communal property in families and clans. Only when agriculture created the first villages, towns, cities and (ultimately) empires, did landed property and wage labour started to become factors of importance. Through conquest and colonization property was confiscated, starting the development of property distribution.
Marx's main thesis in the Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Ecnonomy is that production determines distribution, and not the other way around. The way we produce, as a social group of individuals, determines the distribution of property, whether in the form of wages, rent or profit. Also, division of labour is a distribution, a social distribution. Division of labour, specializing, necessitates exchange of goods between the members of the particular social group. And production, distribution and exchange all are founded on consumption - the human wants of food, drink, shelter, clothes, etc.
According to Marx, production, distribution, exchange and consumption are four interrelationg concepts that influence each other continuously, but all are ultimately determined by production. The flaw in the thinking of the political economists is that they focus on the wrong things: capital is nothing but the end result of the historical development of production that characterizes Western Europe and its spheres of influences. This leads to flawed analysis and hence to mistaken economic theories.
The underlying idea of Marx's view on things, is that abstraction, the generation of general notions, leads to empty, basal ideas, tautologies. Abstrating from a group of individuals (i.e. society) leads to a general notion of man. But this general notion 'man' is only meaningful if it's connected to reality - i.e. when basic characteristics are known. E.g. it is of no use to talk about 'the English' without including population number, income distribution, social classes, etc. Only by 'descending' into reality can economic theories be made useful. Political economists like Smith and Riccardo ascended to abstract heights and built their theories on general, empty notions. Economics should be concerned with social production, production as the aggregate, or outcome of all social relations within society.
Why? Because man is a 'zoon politikon' - a political animal. With this, Marx means that man's individuality only emergies within society. A man on its own has no individuality - only in groups does the individual exist. This is a very interesting notion, and one can see Hegel's influence in this: we have man as a social animal (an ape living in groups, if you will) as well as man as an individual being (a conscious agent). This duality can be resolved by acknowledging that man's individuality emerges as a product of the totality of the social relationships. (A modern day psychologist would claim: you can't have a personal identity without identifying with something and not identifying with other things.)
This, in short, is the summary of Marx's theory in the Introduction. All of his later work can be viewed as an extension or exposition of these key ideas. Production is the aggregate of all social relationships, and determines distribution, exchange and consumption, while being itself determined by these factors. And production, utlimately, is a the product of historical development. When the English colonize new lands, they determine their production, which leads to a particular distribution, exchange and consumption. Economics should be viewed as a particular historical moment and time of a society.
Having read much of Karl Marx, I can safely say that if one reads this Introduction, and maybe Capital Vol. 1, the main ideas of marxist economics is grasped. Capital Vol. 2 and Capital Vol. 3 are, combined, a huge exposé of the main thoughts contained in the Introduction. (Also, they are much less readable than either this Introduction or Capital Vol. 1).
In short, Smith was the first to make a comprehense sociological study of the wealth of nations. He analyzed his contemporary society (Britain, but also parts of Europe) and he concluded that a nation becomes wealthy not through corporatism, serfdom or guilds, but through individual freedom. When people can pursue their own economical interests, all will be better off. States or groups of people/companies should not control prices, levy taxes or put up barriers to foreign trade - only when a free market is allowed to exist, will supply and demand determine the true, fair price of everything.
Riccardo extended and deepened this approach, by explaining how, if everyone produced what he could do best, considering the circumstances, a benefit will arise for everyone. If Norway, due to climatic and natural circumstances, can produce salmon most effectively; and if France, due to similar circumstances, can produce wine cheapest and best; then, it pays both to trade goods. Only by specializing in what one does best, and trade the surplus goods (ultimately) for other goods, will a well-working economy be established. This presupposes free trade and free markets.
But, according to Marx, both Smith and Riccardo, while improving on earlier (seventeenth century) economic theories, fell into a trap. This is the trap of the Enlightenment: thinkers during this era started to critically examine their own societies, to compare this state of things to earlier moments, and to draw far-reaching conclusions from this comparison. According to Smith, political economy (or economics) is to be analyzed through the lens of property: capital, labour and land are the generators of wealth - interest & profit, wages and rent, respectively.
But, while an improvement on the earlier physiocrats (who claimed that land is the only means of production - a common mistake in agricultural societies), this is a fallacy. Smith, in effect, studies historical development through the lens of contemporary society. Capital, the factor that by the time of Smith's writing, started to determine social relationships, but this was in itself the end result (!) of earlier historical development. Historically, everything started with property - mostly communal property in families and clans. Only when agriculture created the first villages, towns, cities and (ultimately) empires, did landed property and wage labour started to become factors of importance. Through conquest and colonization property was confiscated, starting the development of property distribution.
Marx's main thesis in the Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Ecnonomy is that production determines distribution, and not the other way around. The way we produce, as a social group of individuals, determines the distribution of property, whether in the form of wages, rent or profit. Also, division of labour is a distribution, a social distribution. Division of labour, specializing, necessitates exchange of goods between the members of the particular social group. And production, distribution and exchange all are founded on consumption - the human wants of food, drink, shelter, clothes, etc.
According to Marx, production, distribution, exchange and consumption are four interrelationg concepts that influence each other continuously, but all are ultimately determined by production. The flaw in the thinking of the political economists is that they focus on the wrong things: capital is nothing but the end result of the historical development of production that characterizes Western Europe and its spheres of influences. This leads to flawed analysis and hence to mistaken economic theories.
The underlying idea of Marx's view on things, is that abstraction, the generation of general notions, leads to empty, basal ideas, tautologies. Abstrating from a group of individuals (i.e. society) leads to a general notion of man. But this general notion 'man' is only meaningful if it's connected to reality - i.e. when basic characteristics are known. E.g. it is of no use to talk about 'the English' without including population number, income distribution, social classes, etc. Only by 'descending' into reality can economic theories be made useful. Political economists like Smith and Riccardo ascended to abstract heights and built their theories on general, empty notions. Economics should be concerned with social production, production as the aggregate, or outcome of all social relations within society.
Why? Because man is a 'zoon politikon' - a political animal. With this, Marx means that man's individuality only emergies within society. A man on its own has no individuality - only in groups does the individual exist. This is a very interesting notion, and one can see Hegel's influence in this: we have man as a social animal (an ape living in groups, if you will) as well as man as an individual being (a conscious agent). This duality can be resolved by acknowledging that man's individuality emerges as a product of the totality of the social relationships. (A modern day psychologist would claim: you can't have a personal identity without identifying with something and not identifying with other things.)
This, in short, is the summary of Marx's theory in the Introduction. All of his later work can be viewed as an extension or exposition of these key ideas. Production is the aggregate of all social relationships, and determines distribution, exchange and consumption, while being itself determined by these factors. And production, utlimately, is a the product of historical development. When the English colonize new lands, they determine their production, which leads to a particular distribution, exchange and consumption. Economics should be viewed as a particular historical moment and time of a society.
Having read much of Karl Marx, I can safely say that if one reads this Introduction, and maybe Capital Vol. 1, the main ideas of marxist economics is grasped. Capital Vol. 2 and Capital Vol. 3 are, combined, a huge exposé of the main thoughts contained in the Introduction. (Also, they are much less readable than either this Introduction or Capital Vol. 1).
December 20, 2023
No lean la introducción de Curi al iniciar la lectura, sino al final.
March 1, 2021
funny how some of the most important theoretical and philosophical insights Marx articulated are buried in places like these lol
October 20, 2025
yes sir 🫡
February 22, 2024
read introduction only: “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.“
July 14, 2022
Quitando el artículo introductorio (se me hizo muy aburrido) y los apéndices, el texto en sí es de unas treinta páginas. Corto pero muy enriquecedor. En él, establece algunas líneas generales de lo que es esencialmente su aportación intelectual: una crítica, en lugar de un sistema o doctrina.
Comienza refutando la noción del "individuo que produce en solitario" de la que se parte al explicar la economía. En realidad la producción parte de la comunidad. Asumir la existencia de productores aislados es tomar las condiciones económicas actuales e imaginar así al pasado, en lugar de un examen de cómo eran realmente las condiciones. Marx habla en contra de dicha "eternizacion" de las relaciones de producción. Mientras que el estudio convencional de la economía parte de ciertas categorías "salario, propiedad de la tierra, capital" como simples hechos, como si se hablara de la economía per se, en realidad se habla de categorías específicas a un período histórico determinado. No es simplemente economía, es la economía capitalista. Así, no existe una producción en general, una forma natural o universal, sino que todas toman forma según sus condiciones concretas materiales de modo de producción, fuerzas productivas, y relaciones de propiedad.
Comienza refutando la noción del "individuo que produce en solitario" de la que se parte al explicar la economía. En realidad la producción parte de la comunidad. Asumir la existencia de productores aislados es tomar las condiciones económicas actuales e imaginar así al pasado, en lugar de un examen de cómo eran realmente las condiciones. Marx habla en contra de dicha "eternizacion" de las relaciones de producción. Mientras que el estudio convencional de la economía parte de ciertas categorías "salario, propiedad de la tierra, capital" como simples hechos, como si se hablara de la economía per se, en realidad se habla de categorías específicas a un período histórico determinado. No es simplemente economía, es la economía capitalista. Así, no existe una producción en general, una forma natural o universal, sino que todas toman forma según sus condiciones concretas materiales de modo de producción, fuerzas productivas, y relaciones de propiedad.
May 22, 2022
Gran texto. Es la primera parte de los Grundrisse (en conjunto con una selección de textos y cartas que se inscriben en una línea parecida) que ofrece, con sus argumentos sobre la producción como determinante y la concreción (propia del método de la economía política), una comprensión más cabal de lo que posteriormente se desarrolla en «El capital». Imprescindible.
July 17, 2023
Perhaps the greatest summary of the base and superstructure idea we will ever receive - to convey such a grandiose and influential idea in the matter of a minute number of pages truly shows us Marx’s poetical nature as a conveyor of ideas
July 30, 2023
Aunque no he leído mucho de la extensa la obra de Karl Marx en esta oportunidad se me facilita repasar algunos de sus conceptos en la crítica económica como circulación, cambio, distribución y por supuesto producción, seguiré indagando sobre más libros del autor.
July 15, 2023
couldn't find the English trans. here
March 3, 2024
Como lo dice su título, es una introducción al pensamiento económico planteado por Marx, así el libro hace un análisis muy completo acerca de la economía "burguesa" y los procesos de esta.
November 11, 2025
Éste fue un texto complejo. En realidad es una antología de textos en torno a "la introducción general a la crítica de la economía política". De este volumen pueden extraerse, a mi juicio, dos consideraciones: la primera, la economía no es un proceso unidireccional, sino que cada una de las etapas se influyen mutuamente, y la segunda, que las supuestas leyes económicas del capitalismo no son atemporales o absolutos sino productos muy singulares del régimen e intereses burgueses.
January 29, 2021
Davvero ottima l'introduzione di Marcello Musto
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews