Re: [OPE-L] capital in general as a real existence

[Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx]

> If we first leave the content completely aside: the logical structure

> reminds me of that passage from the first edition of capital, Vol.1,

> where – within the context of the value-form analysis – Marx

> describes the money form as follows:

> “It is as if, besides lions, tigers, hares, and all other real animals, ...

> also the animal existed, the individual incarnation of the whole

> animal kingdom”.

 

Hi Hanno,

 

That is a decent analogy, I believe.  In the animal kingdom and the

kingdom of capital, there is simple unity ("the animal"; "capital-in

general" taking the money-form) and diversity ("lions, tigers ...."; 

capital that takes specific forms within individual branches of

production).  Both are "real" -- just as human society consists of unique

individuals and collectivities (groups, classes, nationalities etc.).  _But_

what is missing in the mere contrast between simple unity and diversity

is a dialectical grasp of  *unity-in-diversity*.  This unity-in-diversity is

also real and constitutes an essential moment in the comprehension

of the real nature of the subject.   Within the context of Marx's thought,

the level of abstraction for grasping (reconstructing in thought)  

unity-in-diversity is *not* that of capital-in-general but rather is the

*world market*:

 

"the world market the conclusion, in which production is posited as a

totality together with all its moments, but within which, all contradictions

come into play.  The world market, then, again, forms the presupposition

of the whole as well as its substratum.  Crises are then the general

intimation which points beyond the presupposition, and the urge which

drives towards the adoption of a new historic form." (_Grundrisse_,

Penguin ed., pp. 227-28)

 

The road, though, to "the conclusion" is not a direct one from _Capital_.

On the contrary,  at the close of _Capital_ "the question to be

answered next is: 'What makes a class?'" (Volume 3, Penguin ed.,

p. 1025).  Only after grasping the subjects of  landed property, wage-

labour, the state, and foreign trade can one begin the presentational

reconstruction in thought of the 'conclusion'.

 

In solidarity, Jerry

 

PS: the post that Rakesh re-sent was from a thread on "totality" from

February, 2002.   See http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0202