Re: (OPE-L) RE: logical order and historical order

[Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: (OPE-L) logical order and historical order

Hi Jerry,

 

Yes, there is much we agree on.  And the point I insist on is reflected very much in Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and Notes on Wagner is important as well.  But I have to put this on hold for a week.  I'll write then.

 

Howard

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gerald A. Levy

To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 7:58 AM

Subject: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) RE: logical order and historical order

Hi Howard

 

>>> You say that the issue we discuss is the ordering of a reconstruction of the subject matter in thought.  My point is that the order of the ordering must follow the real character of the object, not the dictates of thought.  That point is glossed over in the simple pairing of logic and history. <<<

 

I'm still trying to gauge the extent to which we agree and

disagree.

 

Let's recall that in this thread  I have been responding to

a position suggested by Rakesh in a post dated 2/6 in which

he asserted that the ordering of  Marx's dialectical analysis

(actually, its *presentation*) follows "the actual historical

movement".  I *agree with you* that logic and history shouldn't 

be simply paired -- indeed, that was the main point I have

been trying to make. 

 

[NB: in a post responding to Rakesh, dated 2/11, I mentioned

"Vorstellung".  Note that in the "Introduction" to the

_Grundrisse_ where Marx explains what is wrong with the

starting point of the population he writes that "this would be a

chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole .... "(Nicolaus

translation, p. 100).  There is also a reference to "Vorstellung"

in the _Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right' (Cambridge,

CUP, 1970, p. 69).  In the latter context, it is written as part

of a critique of Hegel's concept of the state: for Hegel "the

state is a mere representation [eine blosse Vorstellung]"

(emphasis in original, JL).]

 

You suggest that the ordering must follow the real character

of the object.  Yes.  But, how is that done? It is done through

the reconstruction of the subject matter (the "object") in

thought.  It is not done through a ordering that matches the

historical appearance of the categories.

 

>>>  For example, we abstract from the state form and present forms of production first because the determinations of the state form are less "simple."  Forms of state depend on how surplus value is pumped out.  This is not a matter of how we order things in thought, but of how the world works.   <<<

 

"The way the world works" can only be comprehended in

thought.  There is no other way. 

 

In solidarity, Jerry