Kap. 52
Die drei großen Klassen der modernen kapitalistischen Gesellschaft: Was bildet eine Klasse?
The reader has just left the relations of distribution traced back to the relations of production they express, with rent's historical limits and the sign of a crisis appearing only as the contradiction between the relations and the productive forces gains breadth and depth. Here the volume's last chapter names the three great classes of modern society, the society resting on the capitalist mode of production, and opens the class question. What forms a class is asked, the answer offering itself only at first sight, and from that standpoint doctors and officials would form two classes. The draft then breaks off before any answer to that question, and the volume ends.
Kap. 52 p1Die Eigentümer von bloßer Arbeitskraft, die Eigentümer von Kapital und die Grundeigentümer, deren respektive Einkommenquellen Arbeitslohn, Profit und Grundrente sind, also Lohnarbeiter, Kapitalisten und Grundeigentümer, bilden die drei großen Klassen der modernen, auf der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise beruhenden Gesellschaft.
three classes of modern society
People who own nothing but their labour-power, people who own capital, and people who own land — whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent — that is, wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners, form the three great classes of modern society, the society that rests on the capitalist mode of production.
Kap. 52 p2In England ist unstreitig die moderne Gesellschaft, in ihrer ökonomischen Gliederung, am weitesten, klassischsten entwickelt. Dennoch tritt diese Klassengliederung selbst hier nicht rein hervor. Mittel- und Übergangsstufen vertuschen auch hier (obgleich auf dem Lande unvergleichlich weniger als in den Städten) überall die Grenzbestimmungen. Indes ist dies für unsere Betrachtung gleichgültig. Man hat gesehn, daß es die beständige Tendenz und das Entwicklungsgesetz der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise ist, die Produktionsmittel mehr und mehr von der Arbeit zu scheiden und die zersplitterten Produktionsmittel mehr und mehr in große Gruppen zu konzentrieren, also die Arbeit in Lohnarbeit und die Produktionsmittel in Kapital zu verwandeln. Und dieser Tendenz entspricht auf der andern Seite die selbständige Scheidung des Grundeigentums von Kapital und Arbeit58 oder Verwandlung alles Grundeigentums in die der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise entsprechende Form des Grundeigentums.
impurity set aside, then the tendency
England is undeniably where modern society, in its economic articulation, is most widely and most classically developed. But even there this class articulation does not come out pure. Here too, middle and transitional levels cover up, everywhere, how the boundaries are drawn — though incomparably less in the countryside than in the towns. This, however, is a matter of indifference for our inquiry. We have seen that it is the constant tendency and the law of development of the capitalist mode of production to separate the means of production off from labour more and more, to gather the scattered means of production into large groups more and more, and so to turn labour into wage-labour and the means of production into capital. And on the other side there corresponds to this tendency the independent separation of landed property from capital and from labour, or the turning of all landed property into the form of landed property that fits the capitalist mode of production.
Kap. 52 p3Die nächst zu beantwortende Frage ist die: Was bildet eine Klasse? und zwar ergibt sich dies von selbst aus der Beantwortung der andern Frage: Was macht Lohnarbeiter, Kapitalisten, Grundeigentümer zu Bildnern der drei großen gesellschaftlichen Klassen?
what forms a class?
The next question to answer is this: what forms a class? And indeed that follows of itself from the answer to the other question: what makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners the formers of the three great social classes?
Kap. 52 p4Auf den ersten Blick die Dieselbigkeit der Revenuen und Revenuequellen. Es sind drei große gesellschaftliche Gruppen, deren Komponenten, die sie bildenden Individuen, resp. von Arbeitslohn, Profit und Grundrente, von der Verwertung ihrer Arbeitskraft, ihres Kapitals und ihres Grundeigentums leben.
the first-sight answer
At first sight, the identity of revenues and of sources of revenue. There are three great social groups, whose members — the individuals who make them up — live respectively from wages, profit and ground-rent: from the valorization of their labour-power, their capital and their landed property.
Kap. 52 p5Indes würden von diesem Standpunkt aus z.B. Ärzte und Beamte auch zwei Klassen bilden, denn sie gehören zwei unterschiednen gesellschaftlichen Gruppen an, bei denen die Revenuen der Mitglieder von jeder der beiden aus derselben Quelle fließen. Dasselbe gälte für die unendliche Zersplitterung der Interessen und Stellungen, worin die Teilung der gesellschaftlichen Arbeit die Arbeiter wie die Kapitalisten und Grundeigentümer - letztre z.B. in Weinbergsbesitzer, Äckerbesitzer, Waldbesitzer, Bergwerksbesitzer, Fischereibesitzer - spaltet.
doctors and officials would count too
From this standpoint, however, doctors and government officials, for example, would also form two classes, since they belong to two distinct social groups, and inside each of the two groups the members' revenues flow from one and the same source. The same would go for the endless fragmentation of interests and positions into which the division of social labour splits the workers as well as the capitalists and landowners — the landowners, for instance, into vineyard-owners, field-owners, forest-owners, mine-owners and fishery-owners.
Kap. 52 p6{Hier bricht das Ms. ab.}
the manuscript breaks off
Engels notes that the manuscript breaks off here.
Kap. 52
The Three Great Classes of Modern Capitalist Society: What Forms a Class?
The reader has just left the relations of distribution traced back to the relations of production they express, with rent's historical limits and the sign of a crisis appearing only as the contradiction between the relations and the productive forces gains breadth and depth. Here the volume's last chapter names the three great classes of modern society, the society resting on the capitalist mode of production, and opens the class question. What forms a class is asked, the answer offering itself only at first sight, and from that standpoint doctors and officials would form two classes. The draft then breaks off before any answer to that question, and the volume ends.
Kap. 52 p1The owners of mere labour-power, the owners of capital and the landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent — in other words wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners — form the three great classes of modern society based on the capitalist mode of production.
three classes of modern society
People who own nothing but their labour-power, people who own capital, and people who own land — whose respective sources of income are wages, profit and ground-rent — that is, wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners, form the three great classes of modern society, the society that rests on the capitalist mode of production.
Kap. 52 p2It is undeniably in England that this modern society and its economic articulation is most widely and most classically developed. Even here, though, this class articulation does not emerge in pure form. Here, too, middle and transitional levels always conceal the boundaries (although incomparably less so in the countryside than in the towns). We have seen how it is the constant tendency and law of development of the capitalist mode of production to divorce the means of production ever more from labour and to concentrate the fragmented means of production more and more into large groups, i.e. to transform labour into wage-labour and the means of production into capital. And this tendency also corresponds to the independent divorce of all landed property from capital and labour,58 or the transformation of all landed property into the form of landed property corresponding to the capitalist mode of production.
impurity set aside, then the tendency
England is undeniably where modern society, in its economic articulation, is most widely and most classically developed. But even there this class articulation does not come out pure. Here too, middle and transitional levels cover up, everywhere, how the boundaries are drawn — though incomparably less in the countryside than in the towns. This, however, is a matter of indifference for our inquiry. We have seen that it is the constant tendency and the law of development of the capitalist mode of production to separate the means of production off from labour more and more, to gather the scattered means of production into large groups more and more, and so to turn labour into wage-labour and the means of production into capital. And on the other side there corresponds to this tendency the independent separation of landed property from capital and from labour, or the turning of all landed property into the form of landed property that fits the capitalist mode of production.
Kap. 52 p3The question to be answered next is: ‘What makes a class?’, and this arises automatically from answering another question: ‘What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners the formative elements of the three great social classes?’
what forms a class?
The next question to answer is this: what forms a class? And indeed that follows of itself from the answer to the other question: what makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landowners the formers of the three great social classes?
Kap. 52 p4At first sight, the identity of revenues and revenue sources. For these are three great social groups whose components, the individuals forming them, live respectively from wages, profit and ground-rent, from the valorization of their labour-power, capital and landed property.
the first-sight answer
At first sight, the identity of revenues and of sources of revenue. There are three great social groups, whose members — the individuals who make them up — live respectively from wages, profit and ground-rent: from the valorization of their labour-power, their capital and their landed property.
Kap. 52 p5From this point of view, however, doctors and government officials would also form two classes, as they belong to two distinct social groups, the revenue of each group’s members flowing from its own source. The same would hold true for the infinite fragmentation of interests and positions into which the division of social labour splits not only workers but also capitalists and landowners — the latter, for instance, into vineyard-owners, field-owners, forest-owners, mine-owners, fishery-owners, etc.
doctors and officials would count too
From this standpoint, however, doctors and government officials, for example, would also form two classes, since they belong to two distinct social groups, and inside each of the two groups the members' revenues flow from one and the same source. The same would go for the endless fragmentation of interests and positions into which the division of social labour splits the workers as well as the capitalists and landowners — the landowners, for instance, into vineyard-owners, field-owners, forest-owners, mine-owners and fishery-owners.
Kap. 52 p6(At this point the manuscript breaks off. — F. E.)
the manuscript breaks off
Engels notes that the manuscript breaks off here.