From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2006 - 13:33:25 EST
Francisco the passage is quoted correctly. The explication of the oddity to which you draw attention is the burden of my chapter 6 in my book The New Dialectic and marx's capital (earlier version in Rethinking Marxism 1993). Chris A 17 Bristol Road Brighton BN2 1AP On 11 Dec 2006, at 20:32, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > > > Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > Dogan, is the citation right? > Why does Marx say "but gives him individual property" instead of > collective property? Co-operation or possession in common seem to be > the opposite of individual property! > Paulo > > Dogan Goecmen wrote: > Dear David in Capital, Vol. 1, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation, > Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation, in > the paragraph before the last paragraph Marx says: *The capitalist > mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of > production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first > negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of > the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the > inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation > of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the > producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition > of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in > common of the land and of the means of production.*See: > http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm;alternatively: > Karl Marx, Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers, Vol. I, p. 715.If > more references needed please let us know. There are many similar > passages in various other works of Marx and Engels. Since you put in > your email Marx on the first place I selected a passage from Capital. > CheersDogan In einer eMail vom 08.12.2006 22:40:26 Westeuropäische > Normalzeit schreibt dlaibman@SCIENCEANDSOCIETY.COM: > Dear OPE comrades, > Folks on this list are *so good* at tracking things down, that I > could > not resist passing this one along. > One of my colleagues at *Science & Society,* Barbara Foley, asks: > where > does Marx (I think she would include Engels as well) put forward the > idea that history proceeds in spiral form -- i.e., negation of the > negation, with elements present in the first-posited stage returning, > in > a "higher" state, in a third stage? > Any references would be appreciated. > In solidarity, > David > David Laibman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST