[ show plain text ]
Andrew,
Yes, Vol. 1 concludes with negation of the negation. In fact, if Rubel is
correct that the second-to-last chapter was written as the last, then we
would have it on the VERY LAST PAGE.
I have three avenues for reply:
1) Marx was having a bit of fun with words ("negation of the negation"
appears no where else in 4000 pages of _Capital_, incl. T.S.V., so far as
I know).
2) Marx was using a metaphor or it was a Hegelian "residual" (Althusser).
3) Marx was subjectively offering a guarantee to the working class and an
unfortunate one. I don't even think the immediately preceeding paragraphs
are convincing (but that is another story).
Any one leads to the same result -- don't base Marxism on that quote.
You and Raya Dunayevskaya offer:
4) Marx had a "break" in his thinking in 1844 and he never left that
theoretical space. I disagree and we then get into discussions which have
already appeared on this list. However, I will note one more time that so
much (although not all) of the Hegelian intepretation is based on words
written on paper which Marx himself decided either NOT to print or were
never intended for publication.
Paul Z.
P.S. I haven't forgotten your 3157, Andrew.
*************************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, on OS/2 and supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Andrew_Kliman wrote:
> In reference to Paul Zarembka's comment on the negation of the negation
> (OPE-L 3222):
...
> It was not only the young Marx, of course, who clung to the concept of
> negation of the negation. It is the culmination of _Capital_, the
> expropriation of the expropriators. Whereas capitalism, the first
> negation, negates individual property, the new society, the second
> negation, re-establishes individual property. "This is the negation of
> the negation."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EDT