Gerry wrote
> meaning of why it was viewed as the "finishing point." I.e. we
know
> that Marx gave careful consideration to the starting point of his
> investigation, but it seems to me that the "end point" also has
> great significance (at least within a Hegelian-Marxist reading).
> What is the rationale for ending with that subject?
>
I think this misrepresents the 'end-points' of a systematic dialectical
presentation. Whilst the starting point may be a single (putatively the
most fundamental and abstract) category (Commodity, or Value or
Surplus-value, or ? according to perspective), the 'end-point' is not some
particular theme ('the world market ...') but is, in principle, the
reconstruction of the empirical as the concrete - the articulation of many
abstract determinants.
And this is the point that Marx makes in the quote you cite a bit later in
the same post under (5)
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Dr Michael Williams
"Books are Weapons"
Department of Economics Home:
School of Social Sciences 26 Glenwood Avenue
De Montfort University Southampton
Hammerwood Gate SO16 3QA
Kents Hill
Milton Keynes
MK7 6HP
tel:+1908 834876 tel/fax: +1703 768641
fax:+1908 834979
email: Mike.Williams@dmu.ac.uk mwilliam@compuserve.com
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/depts/socsci/homepage/mwilliam