https://b-ok.global/book/815137/cc58d1
Publication and reception
The Manuscripts were published for the first time in Moscow in 1932, as part of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe edition.[81]They were edited by David Ryazanov under whom György Lukács worked in deciphering them. Lukács would later claim that this experience transformed his interpretation of Marxism permanently.[82] On publication, their importance was recognized by Herbert Marcuse and Henri Lefebvre: Marcuse claimed that the Manuscripts demonstrated the philosophical foundations of Marxism, putting "the entire theory of 'scientific socialism' on a new footing";[83] Lefebvre, with Norbert Guterman, was the first to translate the Manuscripts into a foreign language, publishing a French edition in 1933.[84] Lefebvre's Dialectical Materialism, written in 1934-5, advanced a reconstruction of Marx's entire body of work in the light of the Manuscripts.[85] In spite of this intense interest, copies of the published volumes of the Manuscripts subsequently became difficult to locate, as the Marx–Engels-Gesamtausgabe project was effectively cancelled shortly afterward.[81]
The text became more widely disseminated after the Second World War, with satisfactory editions appearing in English only in 1956, and in French in 1962.[81] In this period, Galvano Della Volpe was the first to translate and discuss the Manuscriptsin Italian, propounding an interpretation that differed greatly from that of Lukács, Marcuse and Lefebvre and that inspired its own school of thought.[85] Many Catholic writers, particularly those in France, took interest in the Manuscripts at this time.[16]The existential Marxism of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre also drew heavily from the Manuscripts.[85] In the USA, the Manuscripts were embraced enthusiastically in the late fifties and early sixties by the intellectual current subsequently known as the New Left,[86] with a volume containing an introduction by Erich Fromm published in 1961.[87]
Since the terminology of alienation does not appear in any prominent manner in Marx's magnum opus Capital, the publication of the Manuscripts caused great debate regarding the relationship of the "Young Marx" to the "Mature Marx".[88]The Manuscripts were the most important reference for "Marxist humanism",[1] which saw continuity between their Hegelian philosophical humanism and the economic theory of the later Marx.[89] Conversely, the Soviet Union largely ignored the Manuscripts, believing them to belong to Marx's "early writings", which expound a line of thought that had led him nowhere.[4]The structural Marxism of Louis Althusser inherited the Soviet Union's harsh verdict of Marx's early writings.[90] Althusser believed there was a "break" in Marx's development[1] - a break that divides Marx's thought into an "ideological" period before 1845, and a scientific period after.[91] Others who ascribed a break to Marx idealized the Manuscripts and believed the young Marx to be the real Marx.
