RE: [OPE] The English sub-titling of 'Capital'?

> The dialectics are nicely summed up in dynamic
> systems, chaotic, non-linear, contradictory, ever-evolving etc. etc.
 
 
 
Hi Anders:
 
 
I guess that would be true if one, in diamat style, views dialectics as
a simple set of axioms and postulates about history and change. If one
sees dialectics as something more than that, e.g. see concept of
systematic dialectics, then I don't see how dialectics can be "nicely
summed up" with reference to dynamic (et al) systems. (Actually, I think
that dynamics may be even a more mis-used term than dialectics).

>>In any case, I think Jerry makes a good point in asking us to think
>>about any other major scientific advance defined significantly by
>>a 'critique' - in this case, of classical political economy. I
>>could ask whether 'critiquing' (which is, in fact, thinking about thinking)
>>is not a form of idealism.
> For us Germanic language speakers there are many works called "Zur
> Kritik.., "Kritische Darstellung" etc. etc. - so besides the problem
> of translating Kritik to English I frankly cannot see even this as a
> major/good point. The Germanic verb kritizieren (Nordic:
> kritisere/kritisera) can be translated as critiquing, but is often
> translated otherwise.
 
 
Yes, 'kritik' has a long tradition in philosophical thought - much
of it pre-dating the writings of Marx. But, what is _meant_ by critique
is different from author to author. I was referring to Marx's _particular_
conception of critique of political economy. The assertion that the
systematic character of the subject matter would be revealed through
a critique of political economy was, as far as I know, his. This was
never a claim that Hegel or the classical political economists themselves
made. Nor is it obviously true. Nor does it even necessarily follow from
certain postulates of historical materialism. Nor does it fit in an
obvious way with the method of abstraction - which Marx discussed in
the fore-mentioned "Preface to the French Edition". Frankly I think it is
simply one of Marx's claims which Marxists have failed to critically
interrogate. They have failed to critique the meaning of critique. That's
yet another indication that Marxists have failed to adopt Marx's method
which included a critique of _all_ existing thought. In this sense, I'd
say that many of the most ardent supporters of (what they view as) Marx's
thought have unintentionally departed very significatly from Marx's
method.
 
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue May 26 17:49:15 2009