From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2007 - 11:00:30 EST
Hi Jerry, Thanks very much for the Illyenkov reference! Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: <glevy@PRATT.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] the third nation > Hi Howard: > > It was very common for Marx, particularly in the _Grundrisse_, to indicate > at the *end* of a section what needs to be developed further (a very > Hegelian form of exposition). The section in question is "Capital coming > out of the production process becomes money again" which *ends* with the > paragraph which *begins* "Before we go any further, just one remark". > This remark, I believe, is indeed a reference to what he planned to > "return later" to. He didn't return later to it in the _Grundrisse_, did > he? That's because I believe that the appropriate context for the fuller > development of his point was the world market. Recall that, whatever you > think in terms of whether he wanted or did not want to complete the 6 > books in the 6-book-plan later in his life, there is no question that at > the time he wrote the _Grundrisse_ it was part of his design to eventually > write books on foreign trade and the world market ond crisis (Books 5&6). > > btw, did you know that Ilyenkov referred to the passage in question? > He dealt more, I think, with the issue you are trying to get at. > Check it out. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > Ilyenkov > DIALECTICAL LOGIC > The Problem of the General in Dialectics > <http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay11.htm> > > (2) If we are concerned with defining capital in general, then, as Marx > specially remarked, we must take the following point of principle into > account, which has 'more of a logical than an economic character'. '... > Capital in general, as distinct from the particular real capitals, is > itself a real existence. This is recognised by ordinary economics, even if > it is not understood, and forms a very important moment of its doctrine of > equilibrations, etc. for example, capital in this general form, although > belonging to individual capitalists, in its elemental form as capital, > forms the capital which accumulates in the banks or is distributed through > them, and, as Ricardo says, so admirably distributes itself in accordance > with the needs of production. Likewise, through loans, etc., it forms a > level between the different countries. If it is therefore e.g. a law of > capital in general that, in order to realise itself, it must posit itself > doubly, and must realise itself in this double form, then e.g. the capital > of a particular nation which represents capital par excellence in > antithesis to another will have to lend itself out to a third nation in > order to be able to realise it-self. This double positing, this relating > to self as to an alien, becomes damn real in this case. While the general > is therefore on the one hand only a mental (gedachte) mark of distinction > (differentia specifica), it is at the same time a particular real form > alongside the form of the particular and individual.' It is 'the same also > in algebra,' Marx continued. 'For example, a, b, c, are numbers as such; > in general; but then again they are whole numbers as opposed to a/b, b/c, > c/b, c/a, b/a, etc., which latter, however, presuppose the former as their > general elements'. > (follow url and see rest of Ilyenkov for context, JL)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST