Michael Perelman wrote:
> Concerning volume 3:
> We would have to decide if it comes before or after chapter 1 since most
> of the work in volume 3 comes before he published volume 1. Sort of makes
> it confusing.
Yes, it does get confusing ...
Since VI was completed after the drafts of V2 & V3, when stating the
"general law of capitalist accumulation" in Ch 25, why didn't Marx state
that "law" more conditionally? That is, why didn't he use expressions
like "first approximation" or "formal, abstract possibility" (like he had
previously done in the drafts of what became V2) or said something like
"we are going to reconsider this process when we discuss ... in the
context of capitalist production as a whole"?
Marx's style of presentation is even odder when you consider that he was
trying to "coquette" Hegel since Hegel tended to explain (usually
at the end of a chapter) how one topic relates to the next subject and/or
future subjects.
Does anybody have a good explanation for this paradox? The only answer
that I can suggest is that the paradox itself speaks to the incomplete
nature of Marx's analysis of capitalism. Anyone want to take a bite?
In OPE-L solidarity,
Jerry