[ show plain text ]
RE Nicky's [OPE-:3160]:
I agree with you both on the question of the systematic dialectical
development of categories and on the question of whether the
commodity that Marx takes as his starting point is the result of
capitalist production. What I was trying to pose for discussion,
though, is that *even if one does not agree* with these positions,
one might *still* agree that:
a) in a complex system (in this case, capitalism) one needs to
incorporate into one's theory all of the subjects that are
inter-related and inter-connected parts of that system.
b) that there needs to be a logical sequence -- from
beginning to end -- of these subjects in the presentation.
c) that the subjects of the state, foreign trade, and world
market should logically follow the presentation of
capital.
d) that the order of these 3 subjects should be: state before
foreign trade and then foreign trade before world market.
In other words, I am very well aware of where there are
disagreements. What I wanted to probe is where there might
be agreements on this subject.
Thus, for example, I wanted to see if Allin, Paul C, Paul Z,
Fred (and others. Perhaps even Gil? ... Steve K? ... Makoto?
... Steve C?) can *despite differences in interpretation on
other questions* (including differing methodological
perspectives) agree to a-d above.
There is, after all, merit in determining not only where we
disagree but where we agree.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EDT