[OPE-L:2580] Re: the evolution of the meaning of "critique"

From: Gerald Levy (glevy@PRATT.EDU)
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 15:53:08 EST


[ show plain text ]

In [OPE-L:2579], Chris wrote:

> Incidentally Marx to Lasalle Feb 22 1858 is the key reference on Marx's
> understanding of critique.

OK, let's look at the key reference. It is a longish letter that deals with
many other issues as well (e.g. Heraclitus, Palmerston, Marx's health
problems, etc.), so I will excerpt what I think are the most relevant
parts.

"The work to which I am referring is *Critique of Political Economy*, or,
if you like, the system of bourgeois economy critically presented. It is
at once a presentation, and, thereby, a critique of that system".
<...>
"The presentation, I mean the style, is entirely scientific, hence not
repugnant to the police in the ordinary sense. The whole is divided
essentially into six booklets. 1. Capital (contains some introductory
chapters), 2. Landed property. 3. Wage labor, 4. The State, 5.
International Trade, 6. World market. I cannot help making OCCASIONALLY
critical comments on other economists, specifically a polemic against
Ricardo, is so far he *qua* citizen, is compelled to commit economic
blunders *even from a strictly economic standpoint*. ALTOGETHER, HOWEVER,
THE CRITIQUE AND HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND SOCIALISM IS TO
CONSTITUTE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER WORK. Lastly, the brief *historical
sketch* of economic categories and relationships, to make a third book"
(capitalization added for emphasis, JL).

In this scheme of things, there are 3 works planned. The first work is to
consist of 6 "pamphlets" (of which "Capital" is the 1st "pamphlet"). The
2nd work is to be a CRITIQUE AND HISTORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND
SOCIALISM. The 3rd work would then be a "historical sketch" of economic
categories and relationships.

"Stormy movements" and Marx's poor health (also mentioned in this letter),
evidently, got in the way of his ability to accomplish this highly
ambitious plan.

It seems to me that this letter raises far more questions than it solves
re the role and *place* of critique in Marx's theory. Don't you agree?

In solidarity, Jerry



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT