From: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
Date: Wed Jul 05 2006 - 16:19:02 EDT
Fred: I believe this is the post you wanted to see. Do you have any opinions about White's argument ... or his book? In solidarity, Jerry Brooklin, ME ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [OPE-L] ISMT Conference in July on Marx and MEGA 2 From: "Paul Zarembka" <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU> Date: Sat, July 1, 2006 2:30 pm To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.D. White's provocative argument is that "Results of the Immediate Process of Production" was left out of the published version of Vol. I because 'subsumption', its main theoretical concept, didn't work to link Vol. I and Vol. III. 'Subsumption' was even deleted where Marx had been in drafts for earlier parts of Vol. I. Sometimes it is argued the dropping of 'Results' was not a significant act on Marx's part. This avoids issues at stake. Paul Z. Quoting Michael Heinrich <m.heinrich@PROKLA.DE>: > Jerry, > > the case is a little bit more complicated. When we look at the > edited > three volumes of "Capital" we can say, that the draft of the edited > vol. > 3 was written before the drafts of the edited vol. 2. But Marx > wrote > much more than the drafts, which Engels used for the edition. > Therefore > the order of writing is not just vol.3 - vol. 1 - vol. 2. > > In 1863-65 Marx wrote drafts for all three (theoretical) books of > "Capital" (we must distinguish volume and book to understand Marx > letters correctly. He planned to write four books, in three volumes, > but > the content of the volumes changed). He started 1863/64 with the > draft > of book I (the only part which remained is "Results of the immediate > process of production"). After finishing the draft of book I, he > continued with book III (1864/65), but rather soon (during the first > three chapters, what became later the first three sections) he > interrupted and wrote a draft of book II. After finishing this draft > he > continued with book III and stopped his work at the end of 1865 > (with > the unfinished chapter on classes). In January 1866 he started to > prepare book I for publishing (he thought, that vol.1 could include > book > I and II). After publishing book I in vol. 1 (1867) he tried to > prepare > vol. 2 (which now should include book II and III) and for this he > started reworking his draft on book II and a number of new drafts > for > book II emerged. When Engels edited vol. 2 (containing book 2) he > used > only the more recent manuscripts and not the manuscript of 1863-64. > But > for book III, Engels must use the "old" manuscript of 1864/65. > > The precise order of writing was determined by different factors: > what > was clear for Marx and, what was an open question (for example that > Marx > in 1864 started with book III after finishing book I may have had > the > reason, that he wanted to write down something what was clear to > him, > but then he realized, that he also needed some results of book II > and > therefore he interrupted the work on book III) and especially in the > seventies the wish to publish vol. 2 determined Marx to concentrate > on > book II. > > In solidarity > Michael > > ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU schrieb: > > >Michael H et al, > > > >What do we know about _why_ Marx wrote the drafts in the order in > >which he did? I.e. _why_ did he write the drafts for what became > >Volume 3 of _Capital_ before writing Volume I?; why did he write > the > >drafts for most of what became Volume 2 after writing the drafts > for > >what became Volume 3 and Volume 1? > > > >My supposition -- subject to correction -- is that _it didn't > matter_ > >what order he wrote the volumes of _Capital_, but that still > doesn't > >answer the question _why_, does it? > > > >In solidarity, Jerry > >Somesville, MDI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT