Marx on free trade

[Michael Hoover]

> I seem to remember that somewhere in Hal Draper's many volumes on Marx,
> he says that Marx never counterposed 'class in itself' and 'class for
> itself', but 'mass in itself' and class for itself': the point being
> that until it was self-oriented, the class would not be a class but
> merely an atomised mass. However, I have long since lost the relevant
> volume so can't confirm.
> Jim heartfield

I recollect Draper suggesting that class 'in itself'/'for itself' 
formulation is Hegelian residue in Marx, appearing in several works, 
last of which is discussion of French peasantry in _18th Brumaire_, 
and abandoned (properly in HD's view) thereafter.  Readily apparent 
in the _The German Ideology_, clearest expression is in _The Poverty 
of Philosophy_:

'Economic conditions had in the first place transformed the mass
of the people into workers.  The domination of capital created the
common situation and common interests of this class.  Thus this
mass is already a class in relation to capital, but not yet a
class for itself."   Michael Hoover (who, contra, Draper, sees
class 'in itself'/'for itself' formulation in _Grundrisse_, the
bridge between 'young' and 'mature' Marx)