Re: Capital is wrong (fwd)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Wayne Austin" <aaustin@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
To: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Capital is wrong (fwd)

Andy,

You wrote:

> However, contrary to the impression you
> leave, Marx did not have the matter worked out in advance such that the
> order of Capital was merely for expositional tidyness (in fact, where
> Capital was to be published as a serial he was concerned that people would
> not grasp its meaning). Although that Marx's method of exposition or
> presentation differs from his method of analysis is important, it does not
> mean that Capital is not a work of method. Marx states at the outset of
> the Capital project that he must not assume that which he has yet to
> explain. As a mode of explanation, I find Capital to be an intriguing
> work, especially the explanation of surplus-value. The best explanations
> of Marx's method are always found in his substantive work (which is
> obvious, I think, since he never spent much time explaining his method
> elsewhere).


Agreed, Marx did not entirely follow his intended plan in Capital but then
again, few people ever do in the process of writing something.  Also, I
agree that Capital has a method - that of rising from the abstract to the
concrete totality and reproducing the totality in "the thought" - and Marx
did make new discoveries along this route (even though the route is intended
primarily as a path of exposition).  Adding successive abstraction to
reconstruct a concrete totality will, as least as far as I am concerned,
inevtably lead to new insights into the totality.

On the other hand, I think the statement on method in the Grundrisse is
quite adequate.  Unfortunately, it is largely ignored.  In my opinion, this
section is one of those rare peices of writing where EVERY word has to be
carefully considered and thought through.  It may be just a few pages but
several days should be devoted to reading this section.


> Addressing another of your points. It would have been nice had Marx
> finished his project. While I agree that it would have been quickly
> outdated (something that is true of all our work) it would have been very
> useful in resolving or at least making more reasonable some of the
> outstanding debates that have grown up around Marx's views, especially on
> the character of the state. And then there is that unfinished chapter on
> social classes . . . .
>
Yes, disucssion by Marx on social classes or the state would have been
useful in resolving some of these debates.  But, on the other hand,
capitalist soceity is not static, and social classes are not fixed but in
flux.  Our objective should be to comprehend the present configuration of
classes and I am afraid that an extended discussion by Marx on social
classes would have further compounded the already existing difficulties in
the discussion of class.  In my opinion, one of the biggest problems
surrounding ther discussion of class today is that too many people are still
trying to explain/comprehend  classes on the basis of some schema
established by Marx (in the interests of "orthodoxy") instead of moving
beyond the 'master' and attempting to provide a materialist explanation for
the reality of social classes under late (dare I still use this term,
perhaps there are more apporpriate terms, "post-modern", "disorganized",
"Post- Fordist", "Cyber") capitalism

Regards,

Carl Dassbach
>
>