Re Chris's [7l30]: > strongly supports the GLA solution, which shows increasing wealth at one > pole and increasing misery at the other, as its result. Hi Chris. Given Marx's planned structure for _Capital_, how could the "economic law of motion of modern society" have been revealed in Volume One? That is, how could Marx have thought that the "law of motion" would be revealed at the level of abstraction of Volume One where the process of capitalist production is considered prior to an exposition of the process of capitalist circulation and the process of capitalist production as a whole? _If_ Marx _did_ think that the "law of motion" could be revealed in Volume One then that might strongly suggest that _Capital_ was a less consistent systematic dialectical presentation than even most VFT writers have suggested, no? > I do not think this is entirely true for a number of reasons. I agree that, on the whole, my "climax" argument was not all that convincing, but your reasons raise even more questions: > 1. the chapter on colonies in V1 is an anti-climax, almost certainly to > confuse the censor. What is the evidence that the chapter on colonies was so placed for that reason? I'm guessing that you must be aware of some pretty strong evidence otherwise you wouldn't have written that it was included and become the last chapter of VI "almost certainly" to confuse the [German] censors. > 2. The true climax is brought forward to V1,namely the historical tendency > stuff. The "historical tendency stuff" ? That's not _a_ [singular] climax. > 3. Marx's method is not linear but involves transitions to more concrete > and detailed explorations of what had already been done abstractly. So it > is not clear in these circumstances where any 'climax' is. On the whole, I agree. > Lukacs said the whole of Capital is in ch 1 sec 4. Do you agree with Lukacs that the "whole of Capital" is in the section on "The Fetishism of the Commodity and its Secret"? > So I think the details after the LFRP do not contain any sort of climax. The "details after the LFRP" include the greater bulk of Volume 3. If it is misleading to call the LFRP a "climax", then isn't it even _more_ misleading to suggest that the remainder of Volume 3 -- which concerns mostly the distribution of surplus value -- "details"? Moreover, I think also that an argument could be made that since a rather large purpose in writing _Capital_ was to critique political economy that Part Seven -- Chapters 48-5l was a "climax" of sorts. Of course, the actual ending, Ch. 52, was *very* anti-climatic but I have suggested previously how that Chapter should be viewed not as a "climax" but as a "transition" -- in true Hegelian fashion -- to the next Book. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT