A. re [7008]: Further examination (using the "search" function at the http://www.marxists.org site) shows cumulative references to the following terms in all 3 volumes of _Capital_ (writings by Marx only): terms # of references --------------------------------------- -------------------- CLASS COERCION -0- CLASS CONFLICT -0- CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS -0- CLASS CONTRADICTION -0- CLASS DIVISION/FRAGMENTATION -0- (a) CLASS-FOR-ITSELF -0- CLASS FORMATION -l- (b) CLASS-IN-ITSELF -0- CLASS INTEREST -0- CLASS MOVEMENT -0- CLASS ORGANIZATION -0- CLASS POLARIZATION -0- CLASS RELATION -2- (c) CLASS STRATIFICATION -l- (d) CLASS STRUGGLE -0- CLASS STRUCTURE -0- CLASS UNITY -0- CLASS WAR -0- Notes: (a) Not in Untermann translation, but in Fernbach translation there is reference in the last para. of _Capital_ (Ch. 52, l026) to the "infinite fragmentation of interests and positions" of the 3 great classes. (b) VI, CH 26: "the capital class in course of formation". (c) Vol II, Ch l & Ch 4 (d) Vol 3, Ch 52. Fernbach translation is "class articulation". ------------------------------------------------------------------- B. re Howard's [70ll]: I agree with you that had Marx begun _Capital_ with "classes" it would would have been, like "population", an "empty phrase" from which all of the categories necessary for grasping the bourgeois mode of production and developing a critique of political economy could not have unfolded. In that sense, it would have allowed a superficial-only comprehension of capitalism. One has to recall that the "starting point" is crucial in a systematic dialectical reconstruction of a subject matter. More than that, however, *every* category that must be grasped to fully comprehend the subject matter (capitalism) has an appropriate (logical) *place* in that systematic presentation. The question is: where is the place for an examination of *class* -- as a 'rich' category in which rather than the presumption of simple unity alone, there is an exposition of difference and then unity-in-difference (or, expressing this somewhat differently, a transition from generality to particularity to a deepened comprehension of singularity.) That place is not Ch. 52 of _Capital_. Rather, Marx only *introduces* that subject there: indeed he only asks -- *but does not answer* -- "the question to be answered next" ["What makes a class?"] and *notes* -- *but does not explain* -- class fragmentation. Those who are familiar with the structure of Hegel's works will note what Marx is trying to do here: he is *introducing the next subject* (the subject matters of Books II and III.) In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT