zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:50:32
Jerry,
If Capital is a later theoretical statement of Marx's than the
Grundrisse--which are notebooks in a building process toward Capital and
do not contain substantial subject matter distinct from Capital, then are
you claiming that Marx increasingly "de-emphasized" class struggle as he
grew older? Probably not, but I don't know what else you could mean.
Regarding "the one-sided way in which wage-labour is treated" maybe we
should start with...Kenneth Lapides, *Marx's Wage Theory in Historical
Perspective*. Ajit doesn't like Chapter 12 on increasing misery, but
likes Chapter 11 on "missing book"; Mike doesn't like Chapter 11. But
both are subsidiary to the substance of the book--Chapters 1 to 10. So,
we have a "missing discussion" in any step toward "further analysis".
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY web site
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On 10/22/99 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said:
>...If you are asking me whether I
>believe that _Capital_ deemphasized class struggle, then I would have to
>say -- in relation to the _Grundrisse_, for example -- "yes".
>You might ask how these two positions relate to each other? My answer is
>precisely to point out the word that you selected "implications". I.e. an
>analysis *beyond* _Capital_ is implied. Thus, the analysis of _Capital_
>doesn't take into consideration the state-form, implies (from a
>systematic dialectical perspective) that the subject of the state-form
>will be investigated and presented later. Thus, the one-sided way in
>which wage-labour is treated implies that this category will be developed
>further.
>I should add, in passing, that it was not Marx's habit or style to
>purposely leave part of the story untold with the idea that the reader
>would guess the ending. Rather, the implications have to be drawn-out and
>systematically developed. Unfortunately, Marx didn't live long enough to
>do this. We're alive, though. And *if* we think that further analysis is
>required, then let's get on with it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:32 EST