michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@sfu.ca)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:32:54 -0700
At 03:50 PM 10/22/1999, Paul wrote:
>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.
>
Do you think that the Grundrisse was simply notebooks in a building
process toward Capital?
>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.
If you look back at my original comment, I indicated that problems seemed
to set in as soon as he began to discuss the Grundrisse (ie., well before
Ch. 11).
mike
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.
>
>
>
>
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: Phone (604) 291-4669
Fax (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 872-0494
Fax (604) 872-0485
Lasqueti Island: (250) 333-8810
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:32 EST