From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 06:33:29 EST
Re Andrew: "This is because systematic > dialectics helps us think about order of systematic material > but there is no such body of work re incorporation of > historical material." In VF&S Geert and I argue (or perhaps do little more than assert) that such material can be critically incorporated (note that critical political economy should be as critical about so-called historical material as about existing systematisations) at any level of the analysis, but that the rate at which increasing detailed history impacts increases as the presentation becomes more and more concrete. This pretty well follows from the notions of abstract and concrete, I guess. Must run ... Again! michael ------------------------------------ Michael Williams 26 Glenwood Avenue Southampton SO16 3QA tel: 02380768641 fax: 0871 242 5819 michaelj.williams@tiscali.co.uk mobile: 07906 172655 http://www.wmin.ac.uk/mwilliams > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrew Brown > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:06 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: (OPE-L) RE: Systematic Dialectics and the > Presentation of Historical Detail in Volume I of _Capital_ > > > Hi Jerry > > I guess the the ordering of Fine / Saad-Filho's short book > likely to be different to 'Capital' itself. I'd have to > think, in any case, about the whole issue of 'order' when it > comes to historical material. This is because systematic > dialectics helps us think about order of systematic material > but there is no such body of work re incorporation of > historical material. Ilyenkov and Zeleny would be too useful > sources here, I guess. > > Andy > > On 27 Mar 2004 at 13:51, Gerald A. Levy wrote: > > > Hi Andy. > > > > A short addendum to our prior discussion: > > > > > Well, I have pointed to an ongoing general tradition in part > > > initiated by Ben Fine which has established a range of positions > > > clearly at odds with Hegel-inspired systematic dialectics. > > > > You have argued that the length of the historical sections on the > > working day and primitive accumulation have significance > > for Marx's project in Volume I. I interpret this as _also_ meaning > > that conceptually these topics belong in Volume I. Correct? > > > > It's interesting to note in this connection that in the > latest edition > > of _Marx's Capital_ by Fine and (OPE-Ler, Alfredo) Saad-Filho the > > subjects of primitive accumulation and the historical > development of > > capitalist production are presented after the Volume II > topics of the > > circuit of industrial capital and the reproduction schemes. > > > > Have Ben and Alfredo, from your perspective, mis-stepped? > > > > In solidarity, Jerry >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 30 2004 - 00:00:02 EST