Paul Zarembka (683) wrote:
Fred, I have found over many years of teaching Capital that beginning
with Part III works very well for me and, I think, the students. I always
come back to Parts I and II and was not suggesting that Marx could have
or should have skipped Parts I and II. Nevertheless, I still find Part
I, particularly, the most problematic of Capital, but love reading "The
Buying and Selling of Labor Power" in Part II leading up to its dramatic
last paragraph--almost like the end of the first movement of a great
symphony.
My reply:
Paul, Your reply has to do with the pedagogical issue of how best to teach
Capital, and not with the theoretical issue of how Marx constructed his
theory. Does this imply that you agree with me on the theoretical issue -
that, in constructing his theory, Marx could not have skipped Part 1, that
Part 1 provides the logical presupposition for Part 2 and beyond?
Thanks,
Fred