(OPE-L) Re: Systematic Dialectics and the Presentation of Historical Detail in Volume I of _Capital_

[OPE-L Administrator <ope-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul Z.

> Yours is, frankly, a simplistic use of
> materialism, in my opinion.

It is "simplistic" to note that Marx's ill health was
the reason he chose to expand the historical section on
the working day when that is precisely what he wrote
to Engels was the reason for the expansion of the
presentation of that topic?  I think not.

Is it "simplistic" to think that when he was writing
to Engels that his spouse says every day that she
and their children would be better off dead (!!!!!!!!)
because of their poverty that this had an impact on
his work? I think not. To think otherwize, frankly, is
to believe that Marx was not human in the same way
that everyone else is.

The counter-argument is the one which, I believe, is
simplistic since it simply takes the 'finished product'
and asserts -- without evidence -- that since Marx
obviouusly chose to discuss the historical details re
the working day at great length in _Capital_ that
therefore he saw it as somehow very important in
fullfiling the "aims" of that work.  This is directly
refuted by his own explanation to Engels.  It is indeed
simplstic materialism _not_ to believe that his work
was affected by contingent and accidental factors such
as his health.

In solidarity, Jerry