This research in philosophy offers an interpretative study of Karl Marx’s Manuscripts written in 1844,1 during his exile in Paris, which focus on philosophical and economic issues. Its main objective is to analytically demonstrate how the systematic components of these Manuscripts are interconnected and gain a richer meaning considering the concept of wirkliche Aneignung, a German expression that we translate as «authentic appropriation», which captures the essence of what Marx, in 1844, saw as essential for a positive overcoming of private property.
The underlying thesis is that the young Marx articulated the origin and positive overcoming of private property through an archetype that organizes the systematic components of his Manuscripts. This allows for a comprehensive appreciation of the structural functioning of the philosophical musings that marked the early stage of his critical work against political economy and capitalism, with a clear distinction between their theoretical and practical aspects.
To achieve this objective, the most sensible strategy is to rely on the original text in its pristine German version as first conceived by the young Prussian philosopher. This is crucial because, starting in 1927 with the first publication in Russian, and subsequent editions such as the 1932 German edition, the 1844 Manuscripts have been ordered according to editorial criteria that deviate from the original text, including added headings.2
Therefore, in this research, we prioritize a reading method based on Marx’s original German text, sticking closely to the considerations that can be directly extracted from his written words, following the order in which they appear in the original pages of 1844. This approach does not deny or disregard the young Prussian philosopher’s sources; on the contrary, it aims to receive them from his own hand, even if this may reveal “contradictions” when compared to other readings that emerged after the posthumous publication of his writings, influenced by editorial criteria that were imposed upon them.
In line with the above, this research presents elaborations of Marx’s interpreters on specific topics, primarily through footnotes, with only occasional comments on their contributions in the main body of the text.3 This approach distinguishes this research from other studies where Marx’s elaborations are mainly discussed within the framework of a canon of interpretations that assume critical positions, or where selected pieces of his philosophy are collected to critique existing social conditions.
This research is fundamentally interpretative; therefore, our first endeavor is to understand what Marx wrote and grasp his point of view to the best of our ability. Only when we have directly understood a philosopher’s words can we judge their position from our own or another’s perspective.4 As the author of this research, I have made an effort to present my own point of view, particularly in aspects that help clarify Marx’s ideas in 1844 and offer novel ways of accurately defining the meaning of his concepts.5 Notably, I have emphasized the central notion of appropriation, along with other related notions, which has been underexplored in research on Marx and his 1844 Manuscripts.6
The delicacy and respect with which I have treated Marx’s written word are reflected in the philological analysis applied to the use of certain German words that Marx chose to express fundamental ideas and concepts in his texts. Additionally, to maintain consistency in the expression of Marx’s thoughts through these specific terms, I have reviewed some English and Spanish translations of the passages I quoted and have offered a more adjusted English translation.7 Moreover, throughout the elaborations I present in this research, I repeatedly write in parenthesis the German word that Marx used, in order to clarify the idea or concept that I am referring to.
Furthermore, at the end of this research, I provide an Apparat. It serves three purposes: one, to enable the reader to compare different translations of each quotation; two, to offer comments on the translations I consulted; and three, to explain the reasons for my own translation choices, particularly for words and phrases central to my research. Each quotation from Marx is numbered in the order in which I use it in my argument, so that the reader can consult the Apparat following this numbering.
This Apparat, included as an appendix, is not a comprehensive analysis that covers all the interpretive nuances and philological details of the quotations I have used from Marx’s 1844 Manuscripts (although I strive to address many details). Instead, its purpose is to justify my interpretive choices when reading Marx and to highlight some limitations faced by those who study his texts in translation rather than in the original German.
According to what has been said, this research offers a potential guide for reading and studying Marx’s 1844 Manuscripts. The way the elaborations are structured, combined with an effort to follow the underlying argumentative thread of the original folios, allows this work to serve as a valuable resource for navigating these complex texts.
It is a fact that the basic structure of all Marx’s philosophical thought is found in his 1844 texts. Whether or not substantial modifications in his philosophical postulates during the development of his thought are accepted,8 these Manuscripts will always be a reference for the study of his subsequent work, particularly ‹Capital› the book that represents the culmination of his philosophical and economic inquiries. Therefore, revealing the underlying structure of the concepts Marx used as tools in his 1844 Manuscripts, as announced by the objective of this research, constitutes a significant contribution to the comprehensive study of his thought.9
In order to develop the objective of this research, it is necessary to consider two key concepts upon which Karl Marx based his discourse in 1844. These concepts can be seen as serving as a “role model” in the thinking of the young Marx, as they are implicit assumptions that are embedded in various ways in the authors who influenced him during that time. These concepts are his notion of humans as species-being (i) and his theory of the objectification of action (ii).10
Regarding the first concept (i), the idea of the species-being (Gattungswesen) is a comprehensive understanding of human nature that, taking as a starting point the uniqueness of human consciousness, allows Marx to complete his anthropology.11 According to Marx, the idea of species-being conveys the notion that humans are beings who possess within themselves the essence of their species. Each individual can recognize this essence within themselves, as well as the essence of all other species, and can make them objects of their understanding and reproduce them in accordance to their essential nature.
Marx argues that humans have the capacity to make their productive activity an object of their will and consciousness. Through their will, humans can decide what they will produce and effectively carry out production. Through their consciousness, they can develop a specific self-awareness about what they seek to produce and then bring it into existence. Marx sees this capacity to freely engage with productive activity as a defining characteristic of species-being.
This characterization of species-being is closely related to the second concept (ii), Marx’s theory of the objectification of action (Vergegenständlichung der Handlung). According to this theory, the human species’ natural forces come with a species-consciousness that enables them to go beyond mere instinct and expand their engagement with nature. They can make their own essence and the essence of other species objects of their knowledge. However, this process is not merely passive, and has not only theoretical but also practical consequences. While humans are not the efficient cause of nature, as they did not create it, they explore its possibilities and affirm their own limits through their active engagement with it. In other words, humans come to know themselves theoretically and practically through their relationship with nature as a totality.
The theory of objectification has two implications for Marx, which we will now only briefly introduce. Firstly, humans require objectification, as each human being is part of nature and their ways of being and behaving can only unfold through contact with other objects in nature. The more broadly and diversely humans are able to connect with nature, including their peers, the more they can develop their potential and understand the limits and possibilities of their species. Secondly, humans realize their intentions and essence through the objectification of their actions, making the activity that allows them to transform natural objects according to their species-being a «vital activity». Marx refers to this activity as Arbeit (labor or work, in English).
The two conceptions introduced here are interwoven in how we have articulated Marx’s discourse in his 1844 Manuscripts to extract its components analytically. In developing the research structure, we detail its content as they appear. We announce them here, in the introduction, because they are fixed points to get the meaning of Marx’s ideas in his 1844 texts.
The structure of this research consists of two parts, each comprised of two chapters. In the first part, we delve into the concepts of Entäusserung and Entfremdung. In chapter one, we highlight that Entäusserung is an inherent element of the notion of labor (Arbeit), and our approach is to analytically distinguish the elements that constitute the reality of labor in Marx’s perspective. In chapter two, we demonstrate that Entfremdung is a concept Marx employed to elucidate the features of a social pathology associated with the reality of labor in the historical context of his time.12. These two concepts are the neutral, descriptive, and negative outcomes of humans’ appropriative behavior towards labor, and we will explore how these forms of human behavior help Marx explain the origins of private property.
However, the latter will only become evident in the second part of the research, where we dedicate two chapters –three and four– to explain appropriation as the behavior of human beings towards labor, encompassing its purpose, process, and resulting product. Chapter three is devoted to the appropriation process that Marx distinguished in capitalism, in the crude versions of communism, and in the form in which, from Marx’s perspective, Hegel conceived human labor. In chapter four, we specify what Marx said about authentic or real appropriation (wirkliche Aneignung) and outline the elements and manifestations that characterize it.
In summary, the two parts of this research present productive human activity and its corresponding appropriative outcome. Chapter one depicts the neutral and descriptive model, while chapter two explores the negative outcome of such activity in capitalism. Chapter three specifies the appropriative behavior in capitalism and unfinished forms of communism, and chapter four focuses on the behavior that disengages productive human activity from those systems.
Finally, in the conclusions, we explain the archetype that systematizes Marx’s argument in the folios of his 1844 Manuscripts. From the perspective of this archetype, it is plausible to maintain that the fibers that articulate Marx’s critical impetus in these folios are all tied to his notion of authentic appropriation of human labor, fibers that are further articulated with other elements that he provided from philosophy.
The hallmark of this research is that it is an integral study of Marx’s discourse from the folios of his 1844 Manuscripts. The first part engages with traditional issues associated with these texts, while the second part addresses often overlooked topics that, together with the former, contribute to an integral understanding of Marx’s writings in 1844.
Before finishing this introduction, I want to express my gratitude to the people who have accompanied me, shared their knowledge, and helped me logistically in each stage of my research process. First and foremost, I thank my wife, Luisa, because her love, company, and support were essential to complete this research.
I thank my advisors for generously sharing their knowledge. In Colombia, I want to thank Andrés Saldarriaga, for inviting me to explore Marx’s texts in searching for answers to my questions and interests in philosophy, and for welcoming me as a researcher in training in his project about the idea of injustice from Marx’s perspective. In Germany, I want to thank Michael Quante, who invited me to look more closely at Marx’s Manuscripts of 1844 and challenged me to read these texts in their original German version. For him the most important thing was to teach me his way of approaching philosophy and encouraging me to learn from his experience in the field of scientific research.
I want to thank my brother Luis Miguel and my colleague Osmar Gaviria Rendón for sharing their knowledge and experience with me, and for assisting me in refining my English language skills to take them to a higher level. Additionally, I am grateful to Jessi Masberg and Jan Spitzer for hanging out with me as Tandem partners, allowing me to progress in my German language skills.
Regarding the logistical support, I am very grateful to the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) and the Exzellenzcluster 2060 „Religion und Politik. Dynamiken von Tradition und Innovation“ for believing in my research project and funding my research stays in Germany. I am also grateful to the people at the University of Münster for their support during my research stays and in the process of pursuing a double doctoral degree. Lastly, I am grateful to the people at the University of Antioquia who teamed up with the director of postgraduate studies, Jorge Antonio Mejía Escobar, to work on formalizing an agreement to achieve a double doctoral degree.
There are many other people whose support made this research much smoother. I think of those who assisted me in my everyday activities during the years I have dedicated myself to this labor. My heartfelt appreciation goes out to all of them.
Understand both the ‹Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts› (Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte) and the ‹Paris Notebooks› (Pariser Hefte), as they are traditionally known from their posthumous editions.
The book by Jorge Veraza Urtuzuástegui titled Los manuscritos de 1844, un discurso revolucionario integral. De cómo los escribió Marx y cómo leerlos en el siglo XXI is a good resource on the distortions caused by how Marx’s Manuscripts of 1844 have been edited, their implications, and the need for a new study of them, according to the original way they were conceived. Among other things, the author maintains that any interpretation of the Manuscripts acquires an alienated character if it does not abide by how Marx originally conceived them. If Veraza’s judgment is correct, this research does not have that alienated character.
It is important to note how some contributions to the study of Marx’s Manuscripts of 1844 were taken into consideration in this research, arising in the Latin American context where I live, such as the notable works by Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, among others. It is also noteworthy to mention foreign authors who have been translated into Spanish, and whose works have traditionally been used in Hispanic America to approach Marx’s ideas in the Manuscripts, such as Herbert Marcuse, György Márkus, Alfred Schmidt, Erich Fromm, Agnes Heller, among others.
In this research I have been careful to take into account the appreciations of all these and many other authors regarding Marx’s base text. I have adopted their terminology when relevant (indicating when I do so). Moreover I have also referenced some of their exegesis views through footnotes on matters I have found to be of value.
Given my systematic reading of Marx and the accompanying methodological strategy, which implies sticking –above all– to the considerations allowed by reading the base text in its original German form as Marx conceived it at the time of writing, this research does not administer the 1844 Manuscripts within the confines of a canon of interpretations, commenting on them, judging them, and looking at their predecessors and influences within the framework of the history of ideas. The contributions of this research seek to stand out by being supported by a detailed reading of the base text, taken as an end in itself compared to other perspectives for its study, which, although not unrelated to the contributions of this research, do highlight divergent interests in the knowledge of Marx’s ideas.
It is a view received and authentically appropriated from what John Rawls expressed in his book ‹Lectures of the History of Political Philosophy› (2007, 104).
This can be observed, for example, in careful my distinction between Entäusserung and Entfremdung throughout this research.
We are keeping sight of the work that Rahel Jaeggi has been doing, in which she certainly addresses this notion. However, as we pointed out in chapter four of this research, her vision falls short of the comprehensive understanding of Marx’s vision of the matter; and her studying emphasis, rather than on an accurate understanding of this philosopher, has focused on a broad assimilation of the concept of alienation (Entfremdung) and its rehabilitation in discussions of practical philosophy.
All quotations from ‹Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts› (Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte) and the ‹Paris Notebooks› (Pariser Hefte) are taken from the carefully edited and detailed edition by MEGA (Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe). Following each quotation, the corresponding page and line in that edition are specified. The English translations in each quotation’s right column are my own. I have taken it upon myself to translate the fragments of Marx’s work used in this research, as I have discovered that certain expressions are indelicately translated when comparing the Spanish and English editions with the original German texts, particularly two central terms in this research: Entäusserung (estrangement) and Entfremdung (alienation), for which the translations given to the second are often chosen despite Marx having explicitly written the first one.
The Spanish editions of the ‹Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts›, compared with the original German texts, were the following:
(2013) Alianza Editorial, Madrid. Translator: Francisco Rubio Llorente.
(2015) Ediciones Colihue, Buenos Aires. Translator: Miguel Vedda.
(2018) Editorial Gredos, Madrid. Translator: José María Ripalda.
It is worth noting that Ripalda consistently interprets the terms Entäusserung and Entfremdung by maintaining the respective invariable translation as extrañación (in English: estrangement) and enajenación (in English: alienation), according to the German version of the text.
The edition of the ‹Paris Notebooks› in Spanish, collated with the original texts in German, was the following:
(1980) Ediciones Era, México D.F. Translator: Bolívar Echeverría.
The editions of the ‹Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts› and the ‹Paris Notebooks› in English, collated with the original texts in German, were the following:
(1975) Progress Publishers, Moscow (Collected Works. Volume 3: Marx and Engels 1843–1844). Translators of the Manuscripts: Martin Milligan and Dirk J. Struik. Translator of the Notes: Clemens Dutt.
(1992) Penguin Books, London (Karl Marx Early Writings). Translators of the Manuscripts: Gregor Benton. Translator of the Notes: Rodney Livingstone.
I have also compared the MEGA version with the carefully edited and detailed edition by Michael Quante, who cross-checked those Manuscripts with texts held by the BBAW-directed Marx-Engels Institute Foundation:
(2009) Ökonomisch-Philosophische Manuskripte, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Louis Althusser was the foremost interpreter of Marx who argued for a discontinuity in Marx’s work. Based on this supposed discontinuity, he subdivided Marx’s thought into two significant essential periods: the still “ideological” period, distinguishable in his texts before 1845, and the “scientific” period, in his texts after 1845.
See his article from 1960 entitled ‹Sur le jeune Marx› in the journal: Recherches Internationale à la Lumière du marxisme. N°. 19, V–VI. For a broader comment on the interpretation of Marx based on a supposed discontinuity, the article by Marcelo Musto (2015), ‹El mito del “joven Marx” en las interpretaciones de los Manuscritos económico-filosóficos de 1844›, is instructive. What appears to be a recurring theme in Marxian exegesis is that the entire understanding of Marx’s work depends on the significance attributed to his texts of 1844, emphasizing the importance of critically examining them with preponderance.
Although it was not attempted in this research, mainly because it was outside the limit of the proposed objective, it is plausible to formulate the hypothesis that Marx maintained the structure of the 1844 Manuscripts, which we revealed as part of the conclusions of this research, in many of his elaborations in ‹Capital›.
Concerning Marx’s human species-being conception (i), there is the influence of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, and Moses Heß; the influence of Hegel is indisputable concerning the theory of the objectification of action (ii). Michael Quante has done detailed studies on these topics, see 1993; 2009: 233–246, 262–275; 2013: 75–79. Ernst Michael Lange, even before Quante, has also delved into the influence of Hegel on Marx’s theory of the objectification of action, see 1980, 32–54.
In section 3.3, of chapter three, we briefly expose Marx’s philosophical anthropology in connection with the theme of needs, keeping in mind “role model” conceptions in the background.
A historical context that is a past place of the era of current economic development.