This threw me

"When the estate of the urban burghers, the
corporations, etc. emerged in opposition to the landed nobility, their condition of existence -- movable
property and craft labour, which had already existed latently before their separation from the feudal ties
-- appeared as something positive, which was asserted against feudal landed property, and, therefore, in
its own way at first took on a feudal form."

I 'm not sure what Marx and Engels are attempting to say about the creation of industry in relation to people's relationship to or idea of the state?

What The !@#$ is Marx talking about?

"What appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier — and this applies also to the elements handed down by an earlier age — is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a definite stage of development of the productive forces.
The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activity of the individuals.
(The fundamental form of this activity is, of course, material, on which depend all other forms - mental, political, religious, etc. The various shaping of material life is, of course, in every case dependent on the needs which are already developed, and the production, as well as the satisfaction, of these needs is an historical process, which is not found in the case of a sheep or a dog (Stirner's refractory principal argument adversus hominem), although sheep and dogs in their present form certainly, but malgré eux, are products of an historical process.)"

Part of me was almost understanding Marx, it reminded me of how different genres can be created by mixing already existing genres, but then he just rambles on and I don't understand his point. He stretches his sentences for too long and I lose sight of the main idea.


editorial-Can you believe thats just 3 sentences?