From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 10:16:56 EDT
> Even when there is no mention of "critique" (besides it is mentioned as > subtitle of the whole book) the question is, in which way Marx did this > examination? Was it the same way, as Ricardo did? (Who probably would > agree about the subject) I think there is a main difference not only in > the results of Ricardo and Marx but also in the way of analysing and > presenting the subject. Hi Michael H, Marx's examination -- in terms of the way he analyzed and presented the subject -- was indeed different from that of Ricardo. Two (of many) differences included: 1) Marx was a revolutionary socialist (what he called a "scientific socialist" and communist). That is, his method of analyzing and presenting the subject has to be understood in the context of his revolutionary project. 2) Ricardo wasn't influenced by Hegel; Marx was. > That the project, what Marx undertakes, is at the same time (not as > separated subjects) exposé and critique, is in my view the real Hegelian > heritage (instead of "laws" of dialectics) and it is less understood in > Marxist tradition. There are certainly works by Hegel that could be thought of as critique -- his _Lectures on the History of Philosophy_ and _Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion_ come to mind. And, certainly that is a *part of* his _Phenomenology of Spirit_ and the _Science of Logic_. However, his theory can also be presented largely sans critique, as he did in the _Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences_. By comparing the *structure* of Hegel's presentation in the latter and the systematic transition among categories and subjects to Marx's major works on political economy that one can see a Hegelian influence that is less understood in the Marxist tradition. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT