Fred, I'm not sure how to answer you. I know you don't intend it but I
almost feel like I'm being set-up regardless of which way I answer you.
If I say that Part I provides the "logical presupposition" for Part 2 it
would read close to being a statement that I don't find Part I
problematic (or, much worse, that I find all of Marx problematic). If I
say that Part I can keep skipped and, presumably, trashed, it would read
that I reject value itself.
So, I'll avoid an answer.
Incidentally, the fact that I've found students responding well to
reading Part I last is more than a pedagogical issue. Most of my students
have working class experiences which inform their ability to comprehend a
reading of Marx (which is not to say that I follow a reductionist
position that theory is "reality"--only needing to be "extracted".)
Paul Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo
----------------------
On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Fred Moseley wrote:
> 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?