From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 09:44:58 EDT
> >It is only puzzling if one believes that there is a significant
> > conceptual
> >difference between 'capital in general' and the 'general nature of
> >capital'/'general analysis of capital'.
> Just the opposite: if Marx didn't make a significant conceptual change,
> why should he change his notions? Why should he drop a notion he used
> extensively for six years?
Hi Michael H:
Did he change his _notions_?
It is obvious that Marx didn't use the precise _expression_ "capital
in general" after a certain date. One can not infer from this, however,
that there was a change in the _notions_ has was advancing.
> If Marx didn't feel the need to
> distance himself from the idea of capital in general in "Capital", why
> he shouldn't continue to use it?
Perhaps he thought the readers would be able to know that the "general
nature of capital" and the "general analysis of capital" meant the same
thing. In any event, the absence of the specific expression "capital in
general" in _Capital_ proves nothing.
> I don't feel the need to distance
> myself from Marxian theory, so I continue to use it. If I would stop use
> Marxian theory, would you interpret this in the same way, saying Michael
> H doesn't feel the need to distance himself from Marx, so he didn't
> mention him?
This is not a good analogy, imo.
******************************
In other posts, you mentioned the equalization of the general rate of profit
in Volume 3.
Let me note here the following passage from Vol 3, Ch 10:
"Let us note here, but merely in passing, that the 'social need'
which governs the principle of demand is basically conditioned by
the relationship of the different classes and their respective economic
positions; in the first place, therefore, particularly by the
proportion between the total surplus-value and wages, and
secondly, by the proportion between the various parts into
which surplus-value is divided (profit, interest, ground-rent,
taxes, etc.)." (Penguin ed., p. 282)
Yet, where is the systematic analysis of 'social need' in _Capital_?
Where is the systematic analysis of the relationship of the
different classes? Indeed, where is the systematic analysis of class
in _Capital_?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 00:00:04 EDT