♫ Here’s the song of the daaaaaaaaaaaay, woaaaaaah woaaaaah yeaaaaaaaaah wooooooo-hoooooooo♫

….Sorry, got caught up there.
So. Today we have the epic Interpol. This is one of my personal favourite tracks by the band from New York. Check it!

The lots-blossom cowers

Under the sin’s bright beams;

Her forehead drooping for hours.

She waits for the night among dreams.

-

The Moon, he is her lover,

He wakes her with his gaze;

To him alone she uncovers

The fair flower of her face.

-

She glows and grows more radiant.

And gazes mutely above;

Breathing and weeping and tembling

With love––and the pain of love.

——

Die Lotosblume

Die Lotosblume ängstigt

Sich vor der Sonne Pracht,

Und mit gesenktem Haupte

Erwartet sie träumend die Nacht.

 -

Der Mond, der ist ihr Buhle,

Er weckt sie mit seinem Licht,

Und ihm entschleiert sie freundlich

Ihr frommes Blumengesicht.

 -

Sie blüht und glüht und leuchtet,

Und starret stumm in die Höh;

Sie duftet und weinet und zittert

Vor Liebe und Liebesweh.

…

Reading this poem, it is not difficult to find alternate or hidden meanings.  I personally find it incredibly romantic, because it uses two very beautiful things, the lotus and the moon, to portray humans in a relationship, and somehow manages to portray enormous emotion with a few subtle words.  What is your favorite romantic  poem, or author?

Another very cool thing about this poem, is that it is originally German, so there are many different English Language translations to choose from.  I had a lot of fun googling the other versions and comparing them!  The Lotus Blossom Cowers has been translated into many different languages, including Portuguese and Italian as well.  The German version was also set to music by Schubert.

English translation by Louis Untermeyer.

~Scarlette F.R.

Since Capital is a dense text with occasional ambiguities and contradictions it seems to me that the more lucid the companion or introduction to Capital is, the better it is. Yet, while Harvey’s guide has quickly become the go to guide for people trying to come to grips with Capital, it lacks cogence and lucidity.

This is because for someone who claims to have closely read Capital every year for something like 30 years the interpretation he provides of it is not close, but baggy and meandering. This is the case for at least three reasons

(1) He never refers to translation issues, which are well known to people studying Marx and are necessary for understanding Capital (for a discussion of some see http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.htm)

(2) He hasn’t cross referenced some of the words that are central to his interpretation with the original German. This leads him to misinterpret crucial parts of the text such as his use of the word ‘appearance’ in the first sentence (Harvey interprets Marx as making a distinction between essence and appearance when Marx is making a historical statement: wealth appears/exists in commodities in capitalism.) or his use of a distinction between material/immaterial which is based on Fowkes mistranslation of the word “sachlich”as material when it should be translated as ‘objective’

(3) His terminological distinctions and exposition are loose and baggy. For example, he (a) uses the term value to describe use-value and exchange value (b) states that socially necessary labour time defines value which is highly ambiguous and can easily contribute to misunderstandings or simplifications how value is constitutive of capitalist social production (c) his interpretation of fetishism is baggy and misconstrues fetishism as resulting from social relationships being ‘disguised in things’ rather than social relationships necessary appearing as relations between things as the result of the social division of labour.

This makes Harvey’s guide to Capital have an unfortunate resemblance to the vacuous type of faux populism that is valorized in certain segments of American culture. This faux populism is based on the premise that things are automatically lucid and cogent, no matter the complexity of the material, if you use plain-spoken conversational language. This can be seen in Harvey’s exposition of fetishism, which has an unfortunate resemblance to a Thomas Friedman column:

“So what’s going on here? You go into a supermarket and you want to buy a head of lettuce. In order to buy the lettuce, you have to put down a certain sum of money. The material relation between the money and the lettuce expresses a social relation because the price-the “how much” …,..-is socially determined, and the price is a monetary representation of value. Hidden within this market exchange of things is a relation between you, the consumer, and the direct producers-those who labored to produce the lettuce. Not only do you not have to know anything about that labor or the laborers who congealed value in the lettuce in order to buy it; in highly complicated systems of exchange its impossible to know anything about the labor or the laborers, which is why fetishism is inevitable in the world market. The end result is that our social relation to the laboring activities of others is disguised in the relationships between things. You cannot, for example, figure out in the supermarket whether the lettuce has been produced by happy laborers, miserable laborers, slave laborers, wage laborers or some self-employed peasant. The lettuces are mute, as it were, as to how they were produced and who produced them.

As a result, Harvey’s stated attempt to provide a close reading that reads Capital in ‘Marx’s own terms’ ultimately fails.  Fortunately, the recently published Heinrich introduction does address these issues. It is also properly lucid and cogent providing an overview of all three volumes of Capital in half of the space it takes Harvey to give an overview of volume 1. If I had my say it would become the go to guide not only for people who are trying to understand Capital, but for a number of people who think they already understand Capital.

About 40,000 years ago, a huge vol­canic erup­tion west of what is now Naples, Italy, show­ered ash over much of cen­tral and East­ern Europe. Some researchers have sug­gest­ed that this super-eruption, com­bined with a sharp cold spell – a Heinrich event – that hit the North­ern Hemi­sphere at the same time, cre­at­ed a “vol­canic win­ter” that spelled doom for the Nean­der­tals. But a new study of micro­scop­ic par­ti­cles of vol­canic glass left behind by the explo­sion con­cludes that the erup­tion hap­pened after the Nean­der­tals were already most­ly gone, bringing the com­pe­ti­tion with mod­ern humans into focus.

Why the Nean­der­tals dis­ap­peared is one of archae­ol­o­gy’s longest-running debates. Over the years, opin­ions have shift­ed back and forth between cli­mate change, com­pe­ti­tion with mod­ern humans, and com­bi­na­tions of the two. Ear­li­er this year, the cli­mate change con­tin­gent got a boost when a Euro­pean team deter­mined that the Ital­ian erup­tion, known as the Cam­pan­ian Ign­imbrite (CI), was two to three times larg­er than pre­vi­ous esti­mates. The researchers cal­cu­lat­ed that ash and chem­i­cal aerosols released into the atmos­phere by the erup­tion cooled the North­ern Hemi­sphere by as much as 2°C for up to 3 years.

Mod­ern humans entered Europe from Africa and pos­si­bly the Mid­dle East around the time of the erup­tion and Nean­der­tals’ demise, give or take sev­er­al thou­sand years. The tim­ing is crit­i­cal. If Nean­der­tals began dis­ap­pear­ing before the erup­tion, it could not be respon­si­ble for their extinc­tion; if their demise began at the same time or short­ly after­ward, the climate argument may still hold.

More than 40 researchers from across Europe, led by geo­g­ra­ph­er John Lowe of Royal Hol­loway, Uni­ver­si­ty of Lon­don in Egham, U.K., used a new tech­nique for detect­ing vol­canic ash across a much larg­er area than pre­vi­ous­ly pos­si­ble. The new method relies on deposits of cryp­totephra, tiny par­ti­cles of vol­canic glass that are invis­i­ble to the naked eye. And by ana­lyz­ing the chem­i­cal com­po­si­tion of the micro­scop­ic par­ti­cles, researchers can trace them back to spe­cif­ic vol­canic erup­tions, in this case the CI.

The team col­lect­ed sam­ples con­tain­ing CI cryp­totephra from four cen­tral Euro­pean caves where stone tools and other arti­facts typ­i­cal of Nean­der­tals and mod­ern humans have been found. They also gath­ered the par­ti­cles from a mod­ern human site in Libya and from marsh­land and marine sites around the Aegean Sea. The results, the team argues in a paper pub­lished online this week in the Pro­ceed­ings of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, are incom­pat­i­ble with the hypoth­e­sis that the CI was respon­si­ble for Nean­der­tal extinc­tion, at least in cen­tral Europe. The CI cryp­totephra lie above, and so post­date, the tran­si­tion from Nean­der­tal to mod­ern human stone tool types at all four cen­tral Euro­pean sites, indi­cat­ing that mod­ern humans had replaced Nean­der­tals before the cat­a­stroph­ic events of 40,000 years ago.

More­over, analy­sis of tree pollen and other cli­mat­ic indi­ca­tors from the marsh and marine sed­i­ments con­firmed that the data sug­gest that the erup­tion and the cold snap hap­pened after the Nean­der­tals had already van­ished from cen­tral Europe.

“Cli­mate was prob­a­bly not direct­ly respon­si­ble for Nean­der­tal extinc­tion, and cat­a­stroph­ic events most cer­tain­ly were not,” says co-author William Davies, an archae­ol­o­gist at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Southamp­ton, Avenue Cam­pus, in the Unit­ed King­dom. That leaves com­pe­ti­tion with mod­ern humans as the most like­ly cul­prit, the team con­tends.

Nev­er­the­less, the authors con­cede that their results are only direct­ly applic­a­ble to cen­tral and prob­a­bly East­ern Europe, and not to West­ern Europe, where some researchers have claimed that Nean­der­tals hung on until at least 35,000 years ago in Por­tu­gal and Spain. Because the team has not been able to find cryp­totephra that far west, “we can­not rule out the sur­vival of Nean­der­tals post-CI and post Hein­rich … in refu­gia like the Iber­ian Peninsula,” says co-author Chris Stringer of the Nat­ur­al His­to­ry Muse­um in Lon­don. “But it must have been a very lim­it­ed sur­vival at best, as they head­ed to phys­i­cal extinction.”

The team’s tech­niques offer new clues to the erup­tion, says Clive Fin­layson, direc­tor of the her­itage divi­sion at the Gibral­tar Muse­um and head of the exca­va­tions at Gibral­tar’s caves, at the south­ern tip of Spain, where Nean­der­tals may have sur­vived until as late as 30,000 years ago. But Fin­layson, an advo­cate of cli­mate change as the key fac­tor in Nean­der­tal extinc­tion, says the researchers have not proven their case. “We can only con­clude from this that the erup­tion and sub­se­quent cli­mat­ic changes had no effect on Nean­der­tals that were already extinct. To pre­tend that these results speak to other fac­tors that may have gen­er­at­ed the Nean­der­tal extinc­tion, which was a pro­tract­ed process, is utter nonsense.”

N.

Musikalische Struktur und Geschichte: Zum Werk des Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftlers Heinrich Poos United Kingdom (UK)

See Prices from Amazon.co.uk
See Product Details from Amazon.co.uk

Musikalische Struktur und Geschichte: Zum Werk des Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftlers Heinrich Poos United Kingdom (UK) Related Articles

Tags: Musikalische Struktur und Geschichte: Zum Werk des Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftlers Heinrich Poos United Kingdom (UK)

Musikalische Struktur und Geschichte: Zum Werk des Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftlers Heinrich Poos United Kingdom (UK) Similar Products

Musikalische Struktur und Geschichte: Zum Werk des Komponisten und Musikwissenschaftlers Heinrich Poos See Prices from Amazon.co.uk See Product Details from Amazon.co.uk

SEE MORE SIMILAR PRODUCTS FROM AMAZON.CO.UK >>

This site (wueywmusicalinstrumentsuk.wordpress.com) is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

And don’t just take it from me:

I hear from many people who’d love to read Capital, but find the thing almost prohibitively daunting. Michael Heinrich has written an excellent little introduction to Marx’s masterpiece. Among its many virtues is that it takes money and finance seriously, which many Marxists don’t. But even if you’ve read lots of Marx, you can still learn a lot by reading this book.

—Doug Henwood, editor, Left Business Observer

Whether one is a ‘traditional world-view Marxist’ like myself, or a student who wants to understand this world we live in, or an activist who is committed to changing it, Michael Heinrich’s succinct, lucid, compelling summary of the three volumes of Marx’s Capital is a ‘must-read’ in our time of crisis.

—Paul LeBlanc, professor of history, La Roche College; author, From Marx to Gramsci and Marx, Lenin and the Revolutionary Experience

The best introduction to Capital I have read. Heinrich has done the world of Marx scholarship a great service. In presenting Marx’s critique of the entire structure of capitalism, Heinrich manages to be comprehensive, deep, and clear at the same time. While making a substantial advance in analyzing Marx, he makes this book accessible to readers who are relatively unfamiliar with Marx.

—Michael Perelman, professor of economics, California State University, Chico; author, The Invisible Handcuffs of Capitalism and The Confiscation of American Prosperity

A brilliant presentation of Marx’s Capital—it would be hard to imagine a more timely publication. Anyone who thought Marx was irrelevant to today’s movement needs only to read this book to see things differently. Whether people describe themselves as anarchists or socialists, all of us can benefit from understanding what Marx actually wrote. Must reading for everyone in the Occupy movement and for everyone who wants to understand social relations in contemporary capitalist societies.

—Paddy Quick, member, Union for Radical Political Economics;
St. Francis College

This is likely the best short introduction to Marx’s Capital to ever appear in English. Michael Heinrich succeeds in providing the readers with a clear and profound understanding of the core of the Marxian critique of political economy, thanks to his deep knowledge of the critical edition of Marx and Engels’s collected writings and of the German debate.

—Riccardo Bellofiore, professor of monetary economics and history of economic thought, University of Bergamo, Italy; co-editor, Re-Reading Marx: New Perspectives after the Critical Edition

A fundamental reinterpretation and understanding of all major ‘chapters’ of Marx’s theory, many of which which remain until now a matter of different interpretations or even dispute among Marxist and Non-Marxist economists and, more generally, social scientists: value theory, money and the credit system, the ‘falling rate of profit,’ economic cycles and crises, and the circuit of social capital … an important book for all those seeking to comprehend the workings of capitalism, but also for the university library and the students’ or scholars’ study of Marx’s theory.

—John Milios, professor of economics, National Technical University of Athens, Greece

The best and most comprehensive introduction to Marx’s Capital there is. It is written in a most accessible style and provides an admirably clear explanation of complex ideas. In contrast to other Introductions to Marx’s Capital, it offers a sophisticated commentary on all three volumes of Capital, provides an excellent critical commentary on the secondary literature, and includes pertinent case studies to illustrate the contemporary relevance of Capital, including an excursus on anti-Semitism, globalization, and imperialism. Its scholarly treatment of Capital is at once accessible, comprehensive and contemporary. I do not know of any better introduction to Capital for undergraduate students and non-specialist readers.

—Werner Bonefeld, Department of Politics, University of York

In only 220 pages the author achieves a summary of the three volumes of Capital: explaining the connection between labor, commodities, and money, how surplus value arises, what capital is, the role of banks and stock exchanges, and from where crises arise. Alongside this he manages to fit in the history of Marxism, demystify the ambiguous term dialectic, and throw in a final chapter on the role of the state in capitalism, all the while refuting common mistakes about the Marxian corpus.

—Stephan Kaufmann, Berliner Zeitung

In a shock move Principia Dialectica have broken with tradition and posted something of interest. Something tells me they will soon be back to the sort of infantile sectarianism my friend described as equivalent to behaving like the kid in the sand box who has a tantrum and throws sand at you.

At this stage, a serious error of Engels has to be mentioned. Marx wanted to begin his seventh chapter, “Revenues (Income) and their Sources,” with “1) The Trinity Formula.” Engels believed he had found three independent fragments concerning this point, two smaller ones which he labelled I and II, and a longer one, labelled III. This last fragment also had a gap, which Engels pointed out to the readers. As Larissa Miskewitsch and Witali Wygodski (1985) managed to show after an exact analysis of the manuscript even before the MEGA volume was published, these are not three independent fragments: The fragments labelled I and II by Engels form a continuous text which exactly fills the gap in fragment III.

Yet I haven’t come across any English editions of The Trinity Formula that rectify this problem. This is where I step in with power of cut and paste. Unfortunately, I lack the  the ability to correct all the translation errors. However,  I can point out that the translation I am using from Marxists.org translates: (1) verdinglichung as “the conversion of social relations into things” instead of reification. (2) Versachlichung in ways such as “production relations are converted into entities” instead of objectification/reification.

Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret, systematise and defend in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the agents of bourgeois production who are entrapped in bourgeois production relations. It should not astonish us, then, that vulgar economy feels particularly at home in the estranged outward appearances of economic relations in which these prima facie absurd and perfect contradictions appear and that these relations seem the more self-evident the more their internal relationships are concealed from it, although they are understandable to the popular mind. But all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided. Thus, vulgar economy has not the slightest suspicion that the trinity which it takes as its point of departure, namely, land — rent, capital — interest, labour — wages or the price of labour, are prima facie three impossible combinations. First we have the use-value land, which has no value, and the exchange-value rent: so that a social relation conceived as a thing is made proportional to Nature, i.e., two incommensurable magnitudes are supposed to stand in a given ratio to one another. Then capital — interest. If capital is conceived as a certain sum of values represented independently by money, then it is prima facie nonsense to say that a certain value should be worth more than it is worth. It is precisely in the form: capital — interest that all intermediate links are eliminated, and capital is reduced to its most general formula, which therefore in itself is also inexplicable and absurd. The vulgar economist prefers the formula capital — interest, with its occult quality of making a value unequal to itself, to the formula capital — profit, precisely for the reason that this already more nearly approaches actual capitalist relations. Then again, driven by the disturbing thought that 4 is not 5 and that 100 taler cannot possibly be 110 taler, he flees from capital as value to the material substance of capital; to its use-value as a condition of production of labour, to machinery, raw materials, etc. Thus, he is able once more to substitute in place of the first incomprehensible relation, whereby 4 = 5, a wholly incommensurable one between a use-value, a thing on one side, and a definite social production relation, surplus-value, on the other, as in the case of landed property. As soon as the vulgar economist arrives at this incommensurable relation, everything becomes clear to him, and he no longer feels the need for further thought. For he has arrived precisely at the “rational” in bourgeois conception. Finally, labour — wages, or price of labour, is an expression, as shown in Book I, which prima facie contradicts the conception of value as well as of price — the latter generally being but a definite expression of value. And “price of labour” is just as irrational as a yellow logarithm. But here the vulgar economist is all the more satisfied, because he has gained the profound insight of the bourgeois, namely, that he pays money for labour, and since precisely the contradiction between the formula and the conception of value relieves him from all obligation to understand the latter.

We ^[49] have seen that the capitalist process of production is a historically determined form of the social process of production in general. The latter is as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations, i.e., their particular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely society, considered from the standpoint of its economic structure. Like all its predecessors, the capitalist process of production proceeds under definite material conditions, which are, however, simultaneously the bearers of definite social relations entered into by individuals in the process of reproducing their life. Those conditions, like these relations, are on the one hand prerequisites, on the other hand results and creations of the capitalist process of production; they are produced and reproduced by it. We saw also that capital — and the capitalist is merely capital personified and functions in the process of production solely as the agent of capital — in its corresponding social process of production, pumps a definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct producers, or labourers; capital obtains this surplus-labour without an equivalent, and in essence it always remains forced labour — no matter how much it may seem to result from free contractual agreement. This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time = 3 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour = 100%. If the necessary labour = 9 and the surplus-labour = 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of surplus-labour only = 33⅓%. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.

In a capitalist society, this surplus-value, or this surplus-product (leaving aside chance fluctuations in its distribution and considering only its regulating law, its standardising limits), is divided among capitalists as dividends proportionate to the share of the social capital each holds. In this form surplus-value appears as average profit which falls to the share of capital, an average profit which in turn divides into profit of enterprise and interest, and which under these two categories may fall into the laps of different kinds of capitalists. This appropriation and distribution of surplus-value, or surplus-product, on the part of capital, however, has its barrier in landed property. Just as the operating capitalist pumps surplus-labour, and thereby surplus value and surplus-product in the form of profit, out of the labourer, so the landlord in turn pumps a portion of this surplus-value, or surplus-product, out of the capitalist in the form of rent in accordance with the laws already elaborated.

Hence, when speaking here of profit as that portion of surplus-value falling to the share of capital, we mean average profit (equal to profit of enterprise plus interest) which is already limited by the deduction of rent from the aggregate profit (identical in mass with aggregate surplus-value); the deduction of rent is assumed. Profit of capital (profit of enterprise plus interest) and ground-rent are thus no more than particular components of surplus-value, categories by which surplus-value is differentiated depending on whether it falls to the share of capital or landed property, headings which in no whit however alter its nature. Added together, these form the sum of social surplus-value. Capital pumps the surplus-labour, which is represented by surplus-value and surplus-product, directly out of the labourers. Thus, in this sense, it may be regarded as the producer of surplus-value. Landed property has nothing to do with the actual process of production. Its role is confined to transferring a portion of the produced surplus-value from the pockets of capital to its own. However, the landlord plays a role in the capitalist process of production not merely through the pressure he exerts upon capital, nor merely because large landed property is a prerequisite and condition of capitalist production since it is a prerequisite and condition of the expropriation of the labourer from the means of production, but particularly because he appears as the personification of one of the most essential conditions of production.

Finally, the labourer in the capacity of owner and seller of his individual labour-power receives a portion of the product under the label of wages, in which that portion of his labour appears which we call necessary labour, i.e., that required for the maintenance and reproduction of this labour-power, be the conditions of this maintenance and reproduction scanty or bountiful, favourable or unfavourable.

Whatever may be the disparity of these relations in other respects, they all have this in common: Capital yields a profit year after year to the capitalist, land a ground-rent to the landlord, and labour-power, under normal conditions and so long as it remains useful labour-power, a wage to the labourer. These three portions of total value annually produced, and the corresponding portions of the annually created total product (leaving aside for the present any consideration of accumulation), may be annually consumed by their respective owners, without exhausting the source of their reproduction. They are like the annually consumable fruits of a perennial tree, or rather three trees; they form the annual incomes of three classes, capitalist, landowner and labourer, revenues distributed by the functioning capitalist in his capacity as direct extorter of surplus-labour and employer of labour in general. Thus, capital appears to the capitalist, land to the landlord, and labour-power, or rather labour itself, to the labourer (since he actually sells labour-power only as it is manifested, and since the price of labour-power, as previously shown, inevitably appears as the price of labour under the capitalist mode of production), as three different sources of their specific revenues, namely, profit, ground-rent and wages. They are really so in the sense that capital is a perennial pumping-machine of surplus-labour for the capitalist, land a perennial magnet for the landlord, attracting a portion of the surplus-value pumped out by capital, and finally, labour the constantly self-renewing condition and ever self-renewing means of acquiring under the title of wages a portion of the value created by the labourer and thus a part of the social product measured by this portion of value, i.e., the necessities of life. They are so, furthermore, in the sense that capital fixes a portion of the value and thereby of the product of the annual labour in the form of profit; landed property fixes another portion in the form of rent; and wage-labour fixes a third portion in the form of wages, and precisely by this transformation converts them into revenues of the capitalist, landowner, and labourer, without, however, creating the substance itself which is transformed into these various categories. The distribution rather presupposes the existence of this substance, namely, the total value of the annual product, which is nothing but materialised social labour. Nevertheless, it is not in this form that the matter appears to the agents of production, the bearers of the various functions in the production process, but rather in a distorted form. Why this takes place will be developed in the further course of our analysis. Capital landed property and labour appear to those agents of production as three different, independent sources, from which as such there arise three different components of the annually produced value — and thereby the product in which it exists; thus, from which there arise not merely the different forms of this value as revenues falling to the share of particular factors in the social process of production, but from which this value itself arises, and thereby the substance of these forms of revenue.

[Here is where Engels noted there was a break and where I am inserting parts I and II.]

Capital — profit (profit of enterprise plus interest), land — ground-rent, labour — wages, this is the trinity formula which comprises all the secrets of the social production process.

Furthermore, since as previously [Present edition: Ch. XXIII. — Ed.] demonstrated interest appears as the specific characteristic product of capital and profit of enterprise on the contrary appears as wages independent of capital, the above trinity formula reduces itself more specifically to the following:

Capital — interest, land — ground-rent, labour — wages, where profit, the specific characteristic form of surplus-value belonging to the capitalist mode of production, is fortunately eliminated.

On closer examination of this economic trinity, we find the following:

First, the alleged sources of the annually available wealth belong to widely dissimilar spheres and are not at all analogous with one another. They have about the same relation to each other as lawyer’s fees, red beets and music.

Capital, land, labour! However, capital is not a thing, but rather a definite social production relation, belonging to a definite historical formation of society, which is manifested in a thing and lends this thing a specific social character. Capital is not the sum of the material and produced means of production. Capital is rather the means of production transformed into capital, which in themselves are no more capital than gold or silver in itself is money. It is the means of production monopolised by a certain section of society, confronting living labour-power as products and working conditions rendered independent of this very labour-power, which are personified through this antithesis in capital. It is not merely the products of labourers turned into independent powers, products as rulers and buyers of their producers, but rather also the social forces and the future [? illegible] [A later collation with the manuscript showed that the text reads as follows: "die Gesellschaftlichen Kräfte und Zusammenhängende Form dieser Arbeit" (the social forces of their labour and socialised form of this labour). — Ed.] form of this labour, which confront the labourers as properties of their products. Here, then, we have a definite and, at first glance, very mystical, social form, of one of the factors in a historically produced social production process.

And now alongside of this we have the land, inorganic nature as such, rudis indigestaque moles, ["A rude and undigested mass", Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, 7. — Ed] in all its primeval wildness. Value is labour. Therefore surplus-value cannot be earth. Absolute fertility of the soil effects nothing more than the following: a certain quantity of labour produces a certain product — in accordance with the natural fertility of the soil. The difference in soil fertility causes the same quantities of labour and capital, hence the same value, to be manifested in different quantities of agricultural products; that is, causes these products to have different individual values. The equalisation of these individual values into market-values is responsible for the fact that the

“advantages of fertile over inferior soil … are transferred from the cultivator or consumer to the landlord”. (Ricardo, Principles, London, 1821, p.62.)

And finally, as third party in this union, a mere ghost — “the” Labour, which is no more than an abstraction and taken by itself does not exist at all, or, if we take… [illegible] [As has been established by later reading of the manuscript, it reads here: "wenn wir das Gemeinte nehmen" (if we take that which is behind it). — Ed.], the productive activity of human beings in general, by which they promote the interchange with Nature, divested not only of every social form and well-defined character, but even in its bare natural existence, independent of society, removed from all societies, and as an expression and confirmation of life which the still non-social man in general has in common with the one who is in any way social.

II

Capital — interest; landed property, private ownership of the Earth, and, to be sure, modern and corresponding to the capitalist mode of production — rent; wage-labour — wages. The connection between the sources of revenue is supposed to be represented in this form. Wage-labour and landed property, like capital, are historically determined social forms; one of labour, the other of monopolised terrestrial globe, and indeed both forms corresponding to capital and belonging to the same economic formation of society.

The first striking thing about this formula is that side by side with capital, with this form of an element of production belonging to a definite mode of production, to a definite historical form of social process of production, side by side with an element of production amalgamated with and represented by a definite social form are indiscriminately placed: the land on the one hand and labour on the other, two elements of the real labour process, which in this material form are common to all modes of production, which are the material elements of every process of production and have nothing to do with its social form.

Secondly. In the formula: capital — interest, land — ground-rent, labour — wages, capital, land and labour appear respectively as sources of interest (instead of profit), ground-rent and wages, as their products, or fruits; the former are the basis, the latter the consequence, the former are the cause, the latter the effect; and indeed, in such a manner that each individual source is related to its product as to that which is ejected and produced by it. All the proceeds, interest (instead of profit), rent, and wages, are three components of the value of the products, i.e., generally speaking, components of value or expressed in money, certain money components, price components. The formula: capital — interest is now indeed the most meaningless formula of capital, but still one of its formulas. But how should land create value, i.e., a socially defined quantity of labour, and moreover that particular portion of the value of its own products which forms the rent? Land, e.g., takes part as an agent of production in creating a use-value, a material product, wheat. But it has nothing to do with the production of the value of wheat. In so far as value is represented by wheat, the latter is merely considered as a definite quantity of materialised social labour, regardless of the particular substance in which this labour is manifested or of the particular use-value of this substance. This nowise contradicts that 1) other circumstances being equal, the cheapness or dearness of wheat depends upon the productivity of the soil. The productivity of agricultural labour is dependent on natural conditions, and the same quantity of labour is represented by more or fewer products, use-values, in accordance with such productivity. How large the quantity of labour represented in one bushel of wheat depends upon the number of bushels yielded by the same quantity of labour. It depends, in this case, upon the soil productivity in what quantities of product the value shall be manifested. But this value is given, independent of this distribution. Value is represented in use-value; and use-value is a prerequisite for the creation of value; but it is folly to create an antithesis by placing a use-value, like land, on one side and on the other side value, and a particular portion of value at that. 2)… [here is where it goes back to what is part III in capital III].

… Differential rent is bound up with the relative soil fertility, in other words, with properties arising from the soil as such. But, in the first place, in so far as it is based upon the different individual values of the products of different soil types, it is but the determination just mentioned; secondly, in so far as it is based upon the regulating general market-value, which differs from these individual values, it is a social law carried through by means of competition, which has to do neither with the soil nor the different degrees of its fertility.

It might seem as if a rational relation were expressed at least in “labour — wages.” But this is no more the case than with “land — ground-rent.” In so far as labour is value-creating, and is manifested in the value of commodities, it has nothing to do with the distribution of this value among various categories. In so far as it has the specifically social character of wage-labour, it is not value-creating. It has already been shown in general that wages of labour, or price of labour, is but an irrational expression for the value, or price of labour-power; and the specific social conditions, under which this labour-power is sold, have nothing to do with labour as a general agent in production. Labour is also materialised in that value component of a commodity which as wages forms the price of labour-power; it creates this portion just as much as the other portions of the product; but it is materialised in this portion no more and no differently than in the portions forming rent or profit. And, in general, when we establish labour as value-creating, we do not consider it in its concrete form as a condition of production, but in its social delimitation which differs from that of wage-labour.

Even the expression “capital — profit” is incorrect here. If capital is viewed in the only relation in which it produces surplus-value, namely, its relation to the labourer whereby it extorts surplus-labour by compulsion exerted upon labour-power, i.e., the wage-labourer, then this surplus-value comprises, outside of profit (profit of enterprise plus interest), also rent, in short the entire undivided surplus-value. Here, on the other hand, as a source of revenue, it is placed only in relation to that portion falling to the share of the capitalist. This is not the surplus-value which it extracts generally but only that portion which it extracts for the capitalist. Still more does all connection vanish no sooner the formula is transformed into “capital — interest.”

If we at first considered the disparity of the above three sources, we now note that their products, their offshoots, or revenues, on the other band, all belong to the same sphere, that of value. However, this is compensated for (this relation not only between incommensurable magnitudes, but also between wholly unlike, mutually unrelated, and non-comparable things) in that capital, like land and labour, is simply considered as a material substance, that is, simply as a produced means of production, and thus is abstracted both as a relation to the labourer and as value.

Thirdly, if understood in this way, the formula, capital — interest (profit), land — rent, labour — wages, presents a uniform and symmetrical incongruity. In fact, since wage-labour does not appear as a socially determined form of labour, but rather all labour appears by its nature as wage-labour (thus appearing to those in the grip of capitalist production relations), the definite specific social forms assumed by the material conditions of labour — the produced means of production and the land — with respect to wage-labour (just as they, in turn, conversely presuppose wage-labour), directly coincide with the material existence of these conditions of labour or with the form possessed by them generally in the actual labour-process, independent of its concrete historically determined social form, or indeed independent of any social form. The changed form of the conditions of labour, i. e., alienated from labour and confronting it independently, whereby the produced means of production are thus transformed into capital, and the land into monopolised land, or landed property — this form belonging to a definite historical period thereby coincides with the existence and function of the produced means of production and of the land in the process of production in general. These means of production are in themselves capital by nature; capital is merely an “economic appellation” for these means of production; and so, in itself land is by nature the earth monopolised by a certain number of landowners. Just as products confront the producer as an independent force in capital and capitalists — who actually are but the personification of capital — so land becomes personified in the landlord and likewise gets on its hind legs to demand, as an independent force, its share of the product created with its help. Thus, not the land receives its due portion of the product for the restoration and improvement of its productivity, but instead the landlord takes a share of this product to chaffer away or squander. It is clear that capital presupposes labour as wage-labour. But it is just as clear that if labour as wage-labour is taken as the point of departure, so that the identity of labour in general with wage-labour appears to be self-evident, then capital and monopolised land must also appear as the natural form of the conditions of labour in relation to labour in general. To be capital, then, appears as the natural form of the means of labour and thereby as the purely real character arising from their function in the labour-process in general. Capital and produced means of production thus become identical terms. Similarly, land and land monopolised through private ownership become identical. The means of labour as such, which are by nature capital, thus become the source of profit, much as the land as such becomes the source of rent.

Labour as such, in its simple capacity as purposive productive activity, relates to the means of production, not in their social determinate form, but rather in their concrete substance, as material and means of labour; the latter likewise are distinguished from one another merely materially, as use-values, i.e., the land as unproduced, the others as produced, means of labour. If, then, labour coincides with wage-labour, so does the particular social form in which the conditions of labour confront labour coincide with their material existence. The means of labour as such are then capital, and the land as such is landed property. The formal independence of these conditions of labour in relation to labour, the unique form of this independence with respect to wage-labour, is then a property inseparable from them as things, as material conditions of production, an inherent, immanent, intrinsic character of them as elements of production. Their definite social character in the process of capitalist production bearing the stamp of a definite historical epoch is a natural, and intrinsic substantive character belonging to them, as it were, from time immemorial, as elements of the production process. Therefore, the respective part played by the earth as the original field of activity of labour, as the realm of forces of Nature, as the pre-existing arsenal of all objects of labour, and the other respective part played by the produced means of production (instruments, raw materials, etc.) in the general process of production, must seem to be expressed in the respective shares claimed by them as capital and landed property, i.e., which fall to the share of their social representatives in the form of profit (interest) and rent, like to the labourer — the part his labour plays in the process of production is expressed in wages. Rent, profit and wages thus seem to grow out of the role played by the land, produced means of production, and labour in the simple labour-process, even when we consider this labour-process as one carried on merely between man and Nature, leaving aside any historical determination. It is merely the same thing again, in another form, when it is argued: the product in which a wage-labourer’s labour for himself is manifested, his proceeds or revenue, is simply wages, the portion of value (and thereby the social product measured by this value) which his wages represent. Thus, if wage-labour coincides with labour generally, then so do wages with the produce of labour, and the value portion representing wages with the value created by labour generally. But in this way the other portions of value, profit and rent also appear independent with respect to wages, and must arise from sources of their own, which are specifically different and independent of labour; they must arise from the participating elements of production, to the share of whose owners they fall; i.e., profit arises from the means of production, the material elements of capital, and rent arises from the land, or Nature, as represented by the landlord (Roscher). [Roscher, System der Volkswirtschaft, Band I, Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie, Stuttgart und Augsburg, 1858. — Ed.]

Landed property, capital and wage-labour are thus transformed from sources of revenue — in the sense that capital attracts to the capitalist, in the form of profit, a portion of the surplus-value extracted by him from labour, that monopoly in land attracts for the landlord another portion in the form of rent; and that labour grants the labourer the remaining portion of value in the form of wages — from sources by means of which one portion of value is transformed into the form of profit, another into the form of rent, and a third into the form of wages — into actual sources from which these value portions and respective portions of the product in which they exist, or for which they are exchangeable, arise themselves, and from which, therefore, in the final analysis, the value of the product itself arises.^[50]

In the case of the simplest categories of the capitalist mode of production, and even of commodity-production, in the case of commodities and money, we have already pointed out the mystifying character that transforms the social relations, for which the material elements of wealth serve as bearers in production, into properties of these things themselves (commodities) and still more pronouncedly transforms the production relation itself into a thing (money). All forms of society, in so far as they reach the stage of commodity-production and money circulation, take part in this perversion. But under the capitalist mode of production and in the case of capital, which forms its dominant category, its determining production relation, this enchanted and perverted world develops still more. If one considers capital, to begin with, in the actual process of production as a means of extracting surplus-labour, then this relationship is still very simple, and the actual connection impresses itself upon the bearers of this process, the capitalists themselves, and remains in their consciousness. The violent struggle over the limits of the working-day demonstrates this strikingly. But even within this non-mediated sphere, the sphere of direct action between labour and capital, matters do not rest in this simplicity. With the development of relative surplus-value in the actual specifically capitalist mode of production, whereby the productive powers of social labour are developed, these productive powers and the social interrelations of labour in the direct labour-process seem transferred from labour to capital. Capital thus becomes a very mystic being since all of labour’s social productive forces appear to be due to capital, rather than labour as such, and seem to issue from the womb of capital itself. Then the process of circulation intervenes, with its changes of substance and form, on which all parts of capital, even agricultural capital, devolve to the same degree that the specifically capitalist mode of production develops. This is a sphere where the relations under which value is originally produced are pushed completely into the background. In the direct process of production the capitalist already acts simultaneously as producer of commodities and manager of commodity-production. Hence this process of production appears to him by no means simply as a process of producing surplus-value. But whatever may be the surplus-value extorted by capital in the actual production process and appearing in commodities, the value and surplus-value contained in the commodities must first be realised in the circulation process. And both the restitution of the values advanced in production and, particularly, the surplus-value contained in the commodities seem not merely to be realised in the circulation, but actually to arise from it; an appearance which is especially reinforced by two circumstances: first, the profit made in selling depends on cheating, deceit, inside knowledge, skill and a thousand favourable market opportunities; and then by the circumstance that added here to labour-time is a second determining element — time of circulation. This acts, in fact, only as a negative barrier against the formation of value and surplus-value, but it has the appearance of being as definite a basis as labour itself and of introducing a determining element that is independent of labour and resulting from the nature of capital. In Book II we naturally had to present this sphere of circulation merely with reference to the form determinations which it created and to demonstrate the further development of the structure of capital taking place in this sphere. But in reality this sphere is the sphere of competition, which, considered in each individual case, is dominated by chance; where, then, the inner law, which prevails in these accidents and regulates them, is only visible when these accidents are grouped together in large numbers, where it remains, therefore, invisible and unintelligible to the individual agents in production. But furthermore: the actual process of production, as a unity of the direct production process and the circulation process, gives rise to new formations, in which the vein of internal connections is increasingly lost, the production relations are rendered independent of one another, and the component values become ossified into forms independent of one another.

The conversion of surplus-value into profit, as we have seen, is determined as much by the process of circulation as by the process of production. Surplus-value, in the form of profit, is no longer related back to that portion of capital invested in labour from which it arises, but to the total capital. The rate of profit is regulated by laws of its own, which permit, or even require, it to change while the rate of surplus-value remains unaltered. All this obscures more and more the true nature of surplus-value and thus the actual mechanism of capital. Still more is this achieved through the transformation of profit into average profit and of values into prices of production, into the regulating averages of market-prices. A complicated social process intervenes here, the equalisation process of capitals, which divorces the relative average prices of the commodities from their values, as well as the average profits in the various spheres of production (quite aside from the individual investments of capital in each particular sphere of production) from the actual exploitation of labour by the particular capitals. Not only does it appear so, but it is true in fact that the average price of commodities differs from their value, thus from the labour realised in them, and the average profit of a particular capital differs from the surplus-value which this capital has extracted from the labourers employed by it. The value of commodities appears, directly, solely in the influence of fluctuating productivity of labour upon the rise and fall of the prices of production, upon their movement and not upon their ultimate limits. Profit seems to be determined only secondarily by direct exploitation of labour, in so far as the latter permits the capitalist to realise a profit deviating from the average profit at the regulating market-prices, which apparently prevail independent of such exploitation. Normal average profits themselves seem immanent in capital and independent of exploitation; abnormal exploitation, or even average exploitation under favourable, exceptional conditions, seems to determine only the deviations from average profit, not this profit itself. The division of profit into profit of enterprise and interest (not to mention the intervention of commercial profit and profit from money-dealing, which are founded upon circulation and appear to arise completely from it, and not from the process of production itself) consummates the individualisation of the form of surplus-value, the ossification of its form as opposed to its substance, its essence. One portion of profit, as opposed to the other, separates itself entirely from the relationship of capital as such and appears as arising not out of the function of exploiting wage-labour, but out of the wage-labour of the capitalist himself. In contrast thereto, interest then seems to be independent both of the labourer’s wage-labour and the capitalist’s own labour, and to arise from capital as its own independent source. If capital originally appeared on the surface of circulation as a fetishism of capital, as a value-creating value, so it now appears again in the form of interest-bearing capital, as in its most estranged and characteristic form. Wherefore also the formula capital — interest, as the third to land — rent and labour — wages, is much more consistent than capital — profit, since in profit there still remains a recollection of its origin, which is not only extinguished in interest, but is also placed in a form thoroughly antithetical to this origin.

Finally, capital as an independent source of surplus-value is joined by landed property, which acts as a barrier to average profit and transfers a portion of surplus-value to a class that neither works itself, nor directly exploits labour, nor can find morally edifying rationalisations, as in the case of interest-bearing capital, e.g., risk and sacrifice of lending capital to others. Since here a part of the surplus-value seems to be bound up directly with a natural element, the land, rather than with social relations, the form of mutual estrangement and ossification of the various parts of surplus-value is completed, the inner connection completely disrupted, and its source entirely buried, precisely because the relations of production, which are bound to the various material elements of the production process, have been rendered mutually independent.

In capital — profit, or still better capital — interest, land — rent, labour — wages, in this economic trinity represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general and its sources, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, the direct coalescence of the material production relations with their historical and social determination. It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things. It is the great merit of classical economy to have destroyed this false appearance and illusion, this mutual independence and ossification of the various social elements of wealth, this personification of things and conversion of production relations into entities, this religion of everyday life. It did so by reducing interest to a portion of profit, and rent to the surplus above average profit, so that both of them converge in surplus-value; and by representing the process of circulation as a mere metamorphosis of forms, and finally reducing value and surplus-value of commodities to labour in the direct production process. Nevertheless even the best spokesmen of classical economy remain more or less in the grip of the world of illusion which their criticism had dissolved, as cannot be otherwise from a bourgeois standpoint, and thus they all fall more or less into inconsistencies, half-truths and unsolved contradictions. On the other hand, it is just as natural for the actual agents of production to feel completely at home in these estranged and irrational forms of capital — interest, land — rent, labour — wages, since these are precisely the forms of illusion in which they move about and find their daily occupation. It is therefore just as natural that vulgar economy, which is no more than a didactic, more or less dogmatic, translation of everyday conceptions of the actual agents of production, and which arranges them in a certain rational order, should see precisely in this trinity, which is devoid of all inner connection, the natural and indubitable lofty basis for its shallow pompousness. This formula simultaneously corresponds to the interests of the ruling classes by proclaiming the physical necessity and eternal justification of their sources of revenue and elevating them to a dogma.

In our description of how production relations are converted into entities and rendered independent in relation to the agents of production, we leave aside the manner in which the interrelations, due to the world-market, its conjunctures, movements of market-prices, periods of credit, industrial and commercial cycles, alternations of prosperity and crisis, appear to them as overwhelming natural laws that irresistibly enforce their will over them, and confront them as blind necessity. We leave this aside because the actual movement of competition belongs beyond our scope, and we need present only the inner organisation of the capitalist mode of production, in its ideal average, as it were.

In preceding forms of society this economic mystification arose principally with respect to money and interest-bearing capital. In the nature of things it is excluded, in the first place, where production for the use-value, for immediate personal requirements, predominates; and, secondly, where slavery or serfdom form the broad foundation of social production, as in antiquity and during the Middle Ages. Here, the domination of the producers by the conditions of production is concealed by the relations of dominion and servitude, which appear and are evident as the direct motive power of the process of production. In early communal societies in which primitive communism prevailed, and even in the ancient communal towns, it was this communal society itself with its conditions which appeared as the basis of production, and its reproduction appeared as its ultimate purpose. Even in the medieval guild system neither capital nor labour appear untrammelled, but their relations are rather defined by the corporate rules, and by the same associated relations, and corresponding conceptions of professional duty, craftsmanship, etc. Only when the capitalist mode of production — [The manuscript breaks off here — Ed.]

Field of Dreams/Michael Godel

April 18, 2012

The subdivisions and four-lane roads loom close by but down here on the forest floor you would never know it.  Protected land descendant and magical, handed down from generation to generation through noble and notable families. My search is for the scions of spring, young shoots rising up from the loam. The tender green army of accretion ramps through the humus. Hunching in the mulch, great care is taken to remove one Allium tricoccum here, one wild leek there. Feeling through the marl, separating bulb from root without disturbing the subterranean system. This is how I spend my morning.

Harvested Ramps

In the afternoon claustrophobia while tasting through 30 producer’s wines at Austria Uncorked. The Trump Hotel’s 8th Floor zimmer is too small for this event. Gotta be 200 geeks standing shoulder to shoulder, grappling for space. Must make quick haste of the room. Here then three Austrian standouts to pour alongside the cooked wild onions.

 Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Spies 2010 ($22.95) deserves props on a day when Austria’s alpha white plays second fiddle to the more invigorating Rieslings. A Grüner of mellow, yellow body, mind and soul.  Stone fruit, electrical banana and wouldn’t it be refreshing to see this varietal “bound to be the very next craze.” Saffron, green wine speaking terriorilly of gravel, granite and loess.  88

Heinrich Blaufrankisch Leithaberg 2009 ($36.95) out of Burgenland is spirited and sugilite-hued in the vein of top cru Gamay. Versatile and lithe, able to withstand peppery, cooked greens and the would be food kill of the bulbous lily. Lavender imbued, Blau acts as a verdant harbinger for dinner. Signature red of Austria possessive of an art film quality that speaks a languid foreign language.  90

Bründlmayer, Steinmassel Riesling 2006 (0120600, $29) from Kamptal is a racy, stone cold, sobering Riesling just beginning to lay off the gas. The petrol notes mixed with a leesy, citrus pang show off the peripatetic nature of the varietal.  The zen of the intelligent Bründlmayer machine.  91

Wild leeks as vegetable, condiment and relish. Here, last night’s preparations.

Cleaning the Ramps

T-Bone Steak, Brisket Burgers and Wild Leeks

Cannelini Beans, Zatar and Wild Leeks

Tomorrow, Ramp Omelette and Wild Leek Pizza.

Good to go!

Field of Dreams/Michael Godel

 April 18, 2012

http://blogs.canada.com/2012/04/18/spring-scion-search-leads-to-wild-leeks/

The subdivisions and four-lane roads loom close by but down here on the forest floor you would never know it.  Protected land descendant and magical, handed down from generation to generation through noble and notable families. My search is for the scions of spring, young shoots rising up from the loam. The tender green army of accretion ramps through the humus. Hunching in the mulch, great care is taken to remove one Allium tricoccum here, one wild leek there. Feeling through the marl, separating bulb from root without disturbing the subterranean system. This is how I spend my morning.

Harvested Ramps

In the afternoon claustrophobia while tasting through 30 producer’s wines at Austria Uncorked. The Trump Hotel’s 8th Floor zimmer is too small for this event. There must be 200 geeks standing shoulder to shoulder, grappling for space. Must make quick haste of the room. Here then three Austrian standouts to pour alongside the cooked wild onions.

Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Spies 2010 ($22.95) deserves props on a day when Austria’s alpha white plays second fiddle to the more invigorating Rieslings. A Grüner of mellow, yellow body, mind and soul.  Stone fruit, electrical banana and wouldn’t it be refreshing to see this varietal “bound to be the very next craze.” Saffron, green wine speaking terriorilly of gravel, granite and loess.  88

Heinrich Blaufrankisch Leithaberg 2009 ($36.95) out of Burgenland is a spirited and sugilite-hued in the vein of top cru Gamay. Versatile and lithe, able to withstand peppery, cooked greens and the would be food kill of the bulbous lily. Lavender imbued, Blau acts as a verdant harbinger for dinner. Signature red of Austria possessive of an art film quality that speaks a languid foreign language.  90

Bründlmayer, Steinmassel Riesling 2006 (0120600, $29) from Kamptal is a racy, stone cold, sobering Riesling just beginning to lay off the gas. The petrol notes mixed with a leesy, citrus pang show off the peripatetic nature of the varietal.  The zen of the intelligent Bründlmayer machine.  91

Wild leeks as vegetable, condiment and relish. Here, last night’s preparations.

Cleaning the Ramps

T-Bone Steak, Brisket Burgers and Fried Leeks

Cannelini Beans, Zatar and Wild Leeks

Tomorrow, Ramp Omelette and Wild Leek Pizza.

Good to go!

Unlike the introduction to Capital I read as undergrad Heinrich’s introduction doesn’t peddle the myths and legends of weltanschauung marxism. In contrast, Heinrich’s introduction provides a clear and sophisticated discussion of Marx’s critique of political economy. This discussion also provides an excellent overview of the contentious issues in interpretations of Marx’s critique of political economy. Finally, Heinrich’s introduction provides two important things other introductions lack: (1) an exposition of Marx’s theory of value as a monetary theory of value. (2) an exposition of how this monetary theory of value unfolds across all three volumes of Capital. In other words its a steal at less then $ 16.oo. Buy it here.

Note these brick were available from Waldo Brothers in Boston.

From The  New York Times, March 22, 1908:

$25,000 Note Swindle

TOMBS PRISONER IDENTIFIED AS MAN WHO IS ACCUSED OF A FRAUD

James M. Whelply, who is in the Tombs, was identified yesterday as the man who under the name of J. E. Davis of Brockton, Mass., fraudulently obtained $25,000 in notes from the Blue Ridge Enamel Brick Company of Newark, N. J., on Feb. 17.

Davis represented himself as executor of an estate in Boston that had ready cash to loan, and agreed to take the notes, negotiate them, and turn over $22,500 to the company on March 2nd,he to get his commission out of the difference. The notes were signed by Theodore C. E. Blanchard, President, and Frederick C. Blanchard, Treasurer. There were five for $2,500, seven for $1,500 and one for $2,000.

Davis sold them through New England for any amount he could get. The police were put on his trail, but could not find him until his arrest in New York. One of the fifteen-hundred-dollar notes he had sold in Broad Street for $140 was recovered.

From Clay Record, Vol. XXXII, No. 7, April 15, 1908:

The Blue Ridge Enameled Brick Co. Prudential Bldg. Newark, N. J. through the efforts of the banks have recovered more than one half of the concern’s notes which were given to James M. Whelpley, an alleged swindler, to discount. He is in jail in New York.

From History of the Clay-Working Industry in the United States by Heinrich Ries, PhD., and Henry Leighton, A.B., 1909:

The manufacture of enameled brick from a mixture of Clinton (?) clays, and Clearfield County Coal Measure fire clays, was begun at Saylorsburg, Pa., by the Blue Ridge Enameled Brick Company about 1894, and is still running.

From Clay Record, Vol. XXXV, No. 11, December 1909:

SAYLORSBURG BRICK PLANT REACHES NEW DAWN OF PROSPERITY.

The Blue Ridge Brick Enamel Company, whose finely equipped plant is located at Saylorsburg, Pa., has reached a new dawn of prosperity; its output is to be greatly enlarged as well as the diversity of the product. Important changes have taken place and the capital has been increased. New men have associated themselves with the company and this industry, which has already brought much prominence and fame to the county, will prove even more of an industrial factor than ever before.

In the past the company confined itself to the manufacture of enamel brick of a superior quality, but in the future will increase its output beyond anything ever dreamed of. It is the purpose of the company to make a fine building front brick of superb finish in buff, grey and other colors as desired, floor tiling and encaustic tile. In order to do this all the high grade machinery at the big plant is being overhauled and placed in a condition to meet the demand placed upon it.

The broadening out of the scope and importance of the well known plant is due to the fact that Charles Pryce has discovered on the plant’s property large deposits of clay of the same consistency of that formerly brought in from New Jersey and western Pennsylvania at considerable cost. The fact that the clay is to be had right at the plant means a considerable curtailment in the cost of production and places the company in a much better position to meet the competition to which all manufacturing concerns are subjected. Mr. Pryce, who will have charge of the technical end of the business, is an Englishman by birth, and, besides being a practical brick man, having been connected with some of the largest enameled brick plants in England, is a chemist. and geologist.

The general superintendent, who is now in charge of the mechanical end of the business, is George Prentice, whose experience in the manufacture of brick well fits him for the important responsibilities placed on him. Another important acquisition to the company is Maximilian Kahn, who is interested in large manufacturing plants in and around New York city. Canada and the west. Mr. Kahn is not a total stranger to the brick business inasmuch as his own people are largely engaged in this line in England. Mr. Kahn adds much strength to the company. It was the infusion of this new blood that has had so much to do with the broadening out of the plant.

Nor does the company propose to do the things mentioned, but contracts of much importance have already been received. A large quantity of the enamel brick. which has made the company famous. has been ordered by the Prudential Insurance Company, of Newark. and the output of this plant have been specified by the United States government to be used in a number of government contracts.

VST instruments:

1) Aeternus Brass VSTi (Trumpet mode)
aeternus.syntheway.net

2) Organux VSTi (Default mode)
organux.syntheway.net

3) Percussion Kit VSTi (Timpani preset)
percussion.syntheway.net

Syntheway websites:
syntheway.com
syntheway.net

Originally composed by Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber von Bibern (1644-1704).

…………………………………………………..
Follow Us on:

Facebook:
facebook.com/Syntheway

Twitter:
twitter.com/syntheway
…………………………………………………..