>
> You may be correct. In some places, Marx seems to use exaggeration for
> dramatic effect and/or political effect.
>
> Jerry
>
>
I do not think that he was exaggerating. Tony Smith knows this far better
than I, but Marx's Hegelian methodology gropes toward an all-encompasing
whole. He said that starting points are the hardest, but ending points
are very difficult as well.
Marx's method seems to imply that you begin with individual capital in
vol. 1, then take capital as a whole into account in the next two books.
Finally, broaden the work with the 6+ book plan.
I would expect that the international book would work in reverse, beginning
with capital as a whole, then becoming more concrete as he works on specific
capitals. I suspect that this would be important considering his interest
in the specifics of German capital.
One point with Tony's response to Michael L. One one level he is correct.
Marx does have labor in vol. 1, but he does so mostly because he is
elaborating the social relationships between Labor and Capital. Michael L.'s
point is that he develops these relationships predominately from the
point of view of capital.
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu