Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

[Christopher Arthur <arthurcj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pressure of other work has preventd me from entering this interesting
discussion but I am conscious that Fred's paper has been circulated which
includes a critique of me. I just want to say this is written from Fred's
perspective and doesnt cover my position as fully expressed in the two
papers I have in The Culmination of Capital* eds  M Campbell and G Reuten
2002. In my examination of Grundrisse I discovered Marx employed no less
than 5 DIFFERENT definitions of cig so any discussion of what was dropped
(or retained) has to say which one (or all) is referred to. There is little
textual evidence for Fred's own definition as total capital - the one place
in Gr is also a ref to uberhaupt not im allgemein (the usual stricter
term); the tripartite logical distintion between gnerality, particularity
and singularity occurs early (Gr 105) and seems to fall out in favour of a
definition of the general as 'common' and the differences occasioned by
competition of many capitals yet he undercuts this by references to the
necessity of capital appearing as many capitals. MH is right the early plan
had 'interest' in CiG but this drops out fairly quickly leaving the third
book of Cig just as 'Capital and Profit' (Note to Mike L: profit here is
your surface form of SV yet clearly positioned by Marx in Cig). When Marx
does his Capital drafts he does bring in competition while at the same time
referring to a further book on competition. I agree then with those who try
and make a distinction between a level at which competition is form
determining eg of prices of produiction and where it would deal with things
like comparitive advantage. in a special book.
I attach a rough draft of something I am working on about Cig
My own reconstruction in *Culmination* tries to restore the tripartite
logical division. Hence I distinguish between the broader sense of CIG
contrasted with the competition book (and this I think covers production
price but also I say could be expanded to include interest commercial
profit but not rent), and More narrowly I argue that Vol 1 is at the level
of the general, V2 at the level of the particular, and much of V3 at the
level of the singular. I also agree with rakesh that the whole system is in
some sense an individual So the enemy is not a class of capitalist firms
but capital as such, a hydra headed monster organised through the capital
markets.
(The discussion between Andy and co is not about Cig any more so I will
intervene separately)
Chris

Attachment: %Arthur.RTF
Description: application/applefile

{\rtf1\ansi\deff21 {\fonttbl {\f4\fnil Geneva;}{\f5\fnil Monaco;}{\f16384\fnil Chicago;}{\f2053\fnil Zeal;}{\f14\fnil Zapf Dingbats;}{\f2012\fnil Wingdings;}{\f14214\fnil Webdings;}{\f7204\fnil Verdana;}{\f1110\fnil Trebuchet MS;}{\f2011\fnil Times New Roman;}{\f21\fnil Times;}{\f24\fnil Symbol;}{\f17\fnil Palatino;}{\f3\fnil New York;}{\f201\fnil Mishawaka;}{\f202\fnil Mishawaka Bold;}{\f2040\fnil Impact;}{\f22\fnil Helvetica;}{\f12172\fnil Georgia;}{\f2006\fnil Courier New;}{\f23\fnil Courier;}{\f4514\fnil Comic Sans MS;}{\f2003\fnil Charcoal;}{\f15\fnil Bookman;}{\f12078\fnil Arial Black;}{\f2002\fnil Arial;}{\f7103\fnil Andale Mono;}{\f13861\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_790 100;}{\f13862\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_790 900;}{\f13863\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_110 100;}{\f13864\fnil %MAdobeSerMM_110 900;}{\f6647\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_1450 50;}{\f6648\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_1450 1450;}{\f6649\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_50 50;}{\f6650\fnil %MAdobeSanMM_50 1450;}}{\colortbl\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;}
{\stylesheet {\f4 \fs20 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s2 \ql \sl240 \f22 \sbasedon222 \snext2 Default;}{\*\cs3 \additive \ql \sl240 \f4 \fs18 \snext3 Default SS;}{\s4 \qc \sl240 \fs28 \b \sbasedon2 \snext4 Header;}{\s5 \ql \sl240 \sbasedon2 \snext5 Body;}{\s6 \qc \sl240 \i \sbasedon2 \snext6 Footer;}{\s7 \ql \sl240 \fs20 \sbasedon2 \snext7 Footnote;}{\*\cs8 \additive \ql \sl240 \super \snext8 Footnote Index;}{\s9 \ql \sl240 \f22 \sbasedon222 \snext9 Normal;}{\*\cs11 \additive \ql \sl240 \f22 \fs8 \snext11 Default Paragraph Font;}{\s12 \ql \sl240 \f2006 \fs20 \sbasedon9 \snext12 Plain Text;}}
\ftnbj \sbknone \fet2 \aenddoc \margl1400 \margr1440 \margt1400 \margb1120 \sect \sectd\sbknone{\headerr \pard \ql \sl240 {\f22 \par
}}{\headerl \pard \ql \sl240 {\f22 \par
}}{\footerr \pard \ql \sl240 {\f22 \par
}}{\footerl \pard \ql \sl240 {\f22 \par
}}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \b Kapital im Allgemeinen\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 The term 'das Kapital im allgemeine' served Marx as a central reference point when undertaking his research in political economy. In recent decades it acquired importance in debates on  Marx's method (notwithstanding its absence from his }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 ). Two issues are at stake: first, the meaning of the term, including the use Marx intended for it in the presentation of his results, second, whether or not he abandoned the idea (and why) in the mid-sixties.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 When Marx published the first result of his economic studies in 1859 the title was }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy}{\f2002 \fs22 ; Book One was >On Capital<, of which >Section One< was >Capital in General< (13/15). However, when the first volume of Marx\'92s masterpiece appeared in 1867 the overall title was }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 ; but the term ^capital in general^^ had vanished. Nonetheless, it was argued that some such }{\f2002 \fs22 \i concept}{\f2002 \fs22  was implicit in Marx\'92s research programme by Roman Rosdolsky (1968), in his path-breaking study of Marx\'92s }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Gr}{\f2002 \fs22 , the first ^Rough Draft^^ of }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital }{\f2002 \fs22 written in 1857-58. He argued that the idea of ^capital in general^^ found there retains its importance in any attempt to judge what is going on in the three volumes of }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  given to us. (Rosdolsky 1968, S. ###) These volumes, according to their original plan, comprise what was to be covered by the topic of capital in general. Marx wrote to Lassalle: >The first instalment [...] contains [...] Capital in general (the process o}{\f2002 \fs22 f production of capital; process of its circulation; the unity of the two, or capital and profit; interest)< (11.3.1858, 29/554) [>Die erste Lieferung [\'85] enth\'e4lt [\'85] das Kapital im allgemeine (Produktionsprozess des Kapitals, Zirkulationsprozess des Kapit}{\f2002 \fs22 als, Einheit von beiden oder Kapital und Profit, Zins)< (29/554).] This was to be followed by studies of competition and other things, as the plan sent to Engels by Marx shows: >}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  falls into 4 sections. a) Capital }{\f2002 \fs22 \i en g\'e9n\'e9ral }{\f2002 \fs22 [...] b) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Competition}{\f2002 \fs22 , or the interaction of many capitals. c) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Credit}{\f2002 \fs22 , where capital, as against individual capitals, is shown to be a universal element. d) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Share capital }{\f2002 \fs22 [...]< (2.4.1858, 29/312). [}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Kapital}{\f2002 \fs22  zerf\'e4llt in 4 Abschnitte. a) Kapital en g\'e9n\'e9ral. [...] b) Die }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Konkurrenz}{\f2002 \fs22  oder die Aktion der vielen Kapitalien aufeinander. c) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Kredit,}{\f2002 \fs22  wo das Kapital den einzelnen Kapitalien gegen\'fcber als allgemeines Element erscheint. d) Das Aktienkapital [...]< (29/312).] Marx wrote in 1861-63 a new draft of }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 ; but he still conceived of it under the rubric >capital in general<, as we see from his letter to Kugelmann of 28 December 1862: >It appears separately under the title }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 , and [...] it deals with the subject of [...] ^Capital in general^^. So it does not include the competition of capitals and the system of credit.< (30/639) [>erscheint aber selbst\'e4ndig unter dem Titel: ^}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Das Kapital}{\f2002 \fs22 ^^ und [\'85] umfasst in der Tat nur [\'85] ^Das Kapital im allgemeinen^^. Es ist also nicht darin eingeschlossen die Konkurrenz der Kapitalien und das Kreditwesen.< (30/639)] But thereafter the term disappears.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 The main source for our understanding of ^capital in general^^ is Marx\'92s }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Gr., }{\f2002 \fs22 which is the background to the above plans. An examination of the text shows Marx used the term in different senses.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 Marx wrote to Engels (um den 16. January 1858), that in leafing through Hegel\'92s }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Logic}{\f2002 \fs22  again he found >much to assist me as regards the }{\f2002 \fs22 \i method}{\f2002 \fs22  of treatment< (29/260). [Hegels }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Logik}{\f2002 \fs22  >hat mit gro\'dfe Dienste geleistet [...] in der }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Methode}{\f2002 \fs22  des Bearbeitens< (29/260)]. This explains why, in Notebook [Heft] II, Marx, evidently under this influence, sketches out some logical categories with which to grasp the dialectic of capital. Here >generality< [}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Allgemeinheit}{\f2002 \fs22 ] is differentiated from  >particularity< [}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Besonderheit}{\f2002 \fs22 ], and >singularity< [}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Einzelnheit}{\f2002 \fs22 ]. These are all in their turn sub-divided triadically:\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 "}{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 . I }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Allgemeinheit:}{\f2002 \fs22  1) a) Werden des Capitals aus dem Geld. b) Capital und Arbeit... c) Die Elemente des Capitals aufgel\'f6st nach ihrem Verh\'e4ltniss zur Arbeit.... 2) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Besondrung des Capitals:}{\f2002 \fs22  a) Capital circulant. Capital fixe. Umlauf des Capitals. 3) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Die Einzelnheit des Capitals}{\f2002 \fs22 . Capital und Profit. Capital und Zin. Das Capital als }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Werth}{\f2002 \fs22 , unterschieden von sich als Zins und Profit.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 II }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Besonderheit:}{\f2002 \fs22  1) Accumulation der Capitalien.. 2) Concurrenz der Capitalien. 3) Concentration der Capitalien....\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 III. }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Einzelnheit:}{\f2002 \fs22  1) Das Capital als Credit. 2) Das Capital als Aktiencapital. 3) Das Capital als Geldmarkt." (II.1.1/199) \par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 The next relevant passage is in Notebook III, where Marx makes a similar distinction: >As a relation distinct from that of [commodity] value and money, capital is }{\f2002 \fs22 \i capital in general }{\f2002 \fs22 [}{\f2002 \fs22 \i .}{\f2002 \fs22 ..]. But we are still concerned neither with a }{\f2002 \fs22 \i particular}{\f2002 \fs22  form of capital, nor with an }{\f2002 \fs22 \i individual}{\f2002 \fs22  capital as distinct from other individual capitals etc. We are present at the process of its becoming.< (II.1.1/229) [>Das Capital, soweit wir es hier betrachten, als zu unterscheidendes Verh\'e4ltni\'df von Werth und Geld, ist das }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital im Allgemeinen}{\f2002 \fs22  [\'85]. Aber wir haben es weder noch mit einer }{\f2002 \fs22 \i besondren}{\f2002 \fs22  Form des Capitals zu thun, noch mit dem }{\f2002 \fs22 \i einzelnen Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  als unterschieden von andren einzelnen Capitalien etc. Wir wohnen seinem Entstehungsprocess bei.< (II.1.1/229)] However, Marx was not satisfied and returned in Notebook IV to the question again from another angle: >Capital in general [...] does indeed app}{\f2002 \fs22 ear }{\f2002 \fs22 \i only as an abstraction}{\f2002 \fs22  [...] which grasps [...] the aspects common to every capital [...]. However, capital in general, as distinct from the particular real capitals, is itself a }{\f2002 \fs22 \i real existence}{\f2002 \fs22 .< (II.1.2/359) [>Das }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital im Allgemeinen}{\f2002 \fs22  [\'85] erscheint [...] nur als eine Abstraktion [...], die die differencia specifica des Capitals im Unterschied zu allen andren Formen des Reichthums auffa\'dft [...]. Es sind die\'df Bestimmungen, die jedem Capital als solchem gemein, oder jede bestimmte Summe v}{\f2002 \fs22 on Werthen zu Capital machen. Und die Unterschiede innerhalb dieser Abstraction sind ebenso abstracte Besonderheiten, die jede Art Capital characterisiren, indem es ihre Position oder Negation ist (z.B. capital fixe oder capital circulant); [...] aber ist }{\f2002 \fs22 das Capital im Allgemeinen }{\f2002 \fs22 \i im Unterschied}{\f2002 \fs22  von den besondren reellen Capitalien selbst eine reelle Existenz. (II.1.2/359)<] The example he gives of this last is that of banking and loans, where capital ^doubles^^ itself into the ^general form^^ accumulated in banks and the particular applications }{\f2002 \fs22 for which chunks of it are lent. What is important here is that, while the latter are obviously >particular real capitals<, the ^general form^^ too has separate >real existence< rather than being a mental classification: >while the general is therefore on }{\f2002 \fs22 the one hand only a }{\f2002 \fs22 \i mental}{\f2002 \fs22  }{\f2002 \fs22 \i differentia specifica}{\f2002 \fs22 , it is at the same time a }{\f2002 \fs22 \i particular}{\f2002 \fs22  real form alongside the form of the particular and singular.< (Ebd.) [>W\'e4hrend das Allgemeine daher einerseits nur }{\f2002 \fs22 \i gedachte}{\f2002 \fs22  differencia specifica, ist sie zugleich eine }{\f2002 \fs22 \i besondre}{\f2002 \fs22  reelle Form neben der Form des Besondern und Einzelnen.< (II.1.2/359)]\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 >From Notebook V on, the term >many capitals< (II.1.2/418) [>viele Capitalien< (II.1.2/418)] begins to show up in the text; as ^real^^ [>reelles<] they are contrasted with >what they all have in common< (II.1.2/418 Zeile 24-25) [>was alle gemein haben, Cap}{\f2002 \fs22 ital zu sein< (II.1.2/418)] or with their ^general concept^^;  but it is important to postpone consideration of >the interaction of many capitals on one another<}{\f2002 \fs22 \i  }{\f2002 \fs22 (II.1.2/532) [>die Wechselwirkung vieler Capitalien aufeinander< (II.1.2/532)]. In particular, examination of the distribution of total profit among different capitals does not belong here but only with the study of many capitals. (II.1.2 632) Finally, in }{\f2002 \fs22 the last Notebook, yet another concept of capital in general appears: >capital in general is not a mere abstraction [...] if I regard capital as the general economic basis of a class as distinct from another class< (II.1.2/715). [>Das Capital im Allgemeine}{\f2002 \fs22 n betrachtet, ist keine blose Abstraction. Betrachte ich das Gesammtcapital einer Nation z. B. im Unterschied von der Gesammtlohnarbeit (oder auch Grundeigenthum) oder betrachte ich das Kapital als die allgemeine \'f6konomische Basis einer Klasse im Unterschi}{\f2002 \fs22 ed zu einer andren Klasse, so betrachte ich es im Allgemeinen.< (II.1.2/715)] \par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 What can be made of these genial suggestions in Marx\'92s }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Gr}{\f2002 \fs22 ? There are three broad senses of ^capital in general^^ to discuss: methodological, logical, and ontological.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 1) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Methodology. }{\f2002 \fs22 Marx makes a distinction between many capitals and >what they all have in common<, their >general concept<, or >capital as such<.  It is a standard procedure of empiricism to abstract common elements to form a class. Here the >real< capitals are the many a}{\f2002 \fs22 nd the >general< is merely an abstraction which is generated by the observer and granted expositional priority. However, Marx's concept is not really an empirical generalisation over cases, but an attempt to grasp the 'inner nature' of capital as against i}{\f2002 \fs22 ts manifestation at the level of many capitals.  But there is a complication: Marx seeks to }{\f2002 \fs22 \i postpone}{\f2002 \fs22  discussion of the interaction of capitals, for example the determining effect of competition. This is explicit in the above-mentioned plans. Yet, since capital }{\f2002 \fs22 \i necessarily }{\f2002 \fs22 exists as many capitals in competition, it is doubtful if the distinction may be rigorously maintained. In the }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Gr}{\f2002 \fs22  itself he says: 'Begrifflich  ist die }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Concurrenz }{\f2002 \fs22 nichts als die }{\f2002 \fs22 \i innre Natur des Capitals}{\f2002 \fs22 ,  siene wesenliche Bestimmung, erscheinend und realisirt als Wechselwirkung der vielen Capitalien auf einander, die innre Tendenz als ausserliche Notwendigkeit. Capital existirt and kann nur existiren als viele Capitalien und seine Selbsbestimmung erschei}{\f2002 \fs22 nt daher als Wechselwirkung derselben auf einander.' (II 1.2/326) Moreover, it is necessary to >}{\f2002 \fs22 \i presuppose}{\f2002 \fs22  the absolute predominance of free competition in order to be able [...] to formulate laws adequate to capital< (II.1.2/534). [>So sehr ist die\'df der Fall, da\'df die tiefsten \'f6konomischen Denker, wie Ricardo z.B. die absolute Herrschaft der freien Concurrenz }{\f2002 \fs22 \i voraussetzen,}{\f2002 \fs22  um die adaequaten Gesetze des Capitals  [...] studiren und formuliren zu k\'f6nnen.< (II.1.2/534)] It would be hardly surprising if the effort to hold apart essence and appearance proved too artificial and a more dialectical presentation were later adopted.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 2) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Logic. }{\f2002 \fs22 A different approach to the first is that in which capital is structured in a tripartite logical division, between generality, particularity, and singularity.  The 'logical' differs from the 'methodological' in that the very structure of capital itself has}{\f2002 \fs22  the shape of the Hegelian Concept such that the movement of the argument from general to particular is not an expositional convenience but a replication of capital's own reproduction of itself as a universal through the mediation of the particular and sin}{\f2002 \fs22 gular.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 3) }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Ontology. }{\f2002 \fs22 Marx says that there is a sense in which capital in general can be understood not merely as a mental abstraction from the plurality of real capitals but as itself a real existence, for example in the banking system. Here capital appears as a concrete unive}{\f2002 \fs22 rsal self-particularising itself to determinate sites.  The ontological differs from the logical in that, in opposition to Hegel's idealisation of 'the concept', its dimensions are identified by Marx with material practices, such that the universality of c}{\f2002 \fs22 apital is empirically visible in the operation of the money markets whereas its particularisation appears in specific industrial enterprises.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 Research aimed at developing these notions, either severally or in combination, must take account of the failure of the term in question to appear in }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 . One main question for research here is: did Marx stick to his plan to treat ^competition^^ separately, or was material brought forward from the never-to-be-written book on competition into }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital }{\f2002 \fs22 Volume III? From a wide range of literature I give now some examples of responses to this problem; such responses are of course conditioned by the definitions of capital in general adopted in the first place.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \i Rosdolsky}{\f2002 \fs22  considers that 'capital in general' is a clue to the method of }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  because it structured Marx's research program even though Volume III covers further topics, hence it no longer bears this sub-title. Thus Volume I and Volume II are definitely restricted to capital in general; but  the coverage of Volume III progressively}{\f2002 \fs22  approaches the surface forms determined by competition. (Page or pages)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \i M\'fcller}{\f2002 \fs22  thinks Marx's notion of  'capital in general' does not grasp essential social relations (1978, 131). Moreover he believes that the attempt to deal separately with pure laws apart from their appearance in the real movement is insupportable. (134) In truth }{\f2002 \fs22 the general must be always the concretely general; this must comprehend the specification of single capitals as form-determined by the concept. (136) Thus in }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  Marx }{\f2002 \fs22 \i concretised}{\f2002 \fs22  his concept of capital so as to present the laws }{\f2002 \fs22 \i together}{\f2002 \fs22  with their forms of appearance, including such matters as the distribution of surplus value. While the original focus on 'capital in general' was a legitimate research tool (142) it is dialectically sublated in the concrete concept of capital. (132)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \i Heinrich}{\f2002 \fs22  argues that Marx's attempt to present the theoretical content (value, surplus value etc.)  at the level of  'capital in general' - abstracting from the movements of the many capitals - failed.  Marx recognised this while working on the manuscript of 1861-}{\f2002 \fs22 63, when he found discussion of reproduction and the average rate of profit could not be fitted within this plan. So he was forced to abandon the original concept; a new method had to be developed. }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  presents the dialectic of individual  and social total capital (gesellschaftliches Gesamtkapital) at the three different levels of the three volumes. (2003, page/s)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx700 \tql\tx1400 \tql\tx2120 \tql\tx2820 \tql\tx3540 \tql\tx4240 \tql\tx4940 \tql\tx5660 \tql\tx6360 \tql\tx7080 \tql\tx7780 \tql\tx8480 {\f22 Heinrich's claim that the notion of  'capital in general' was abandoned is contested by }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Moseley}{\f2002 \fs22 . Inspired by Rosdolsky, he argues that if the notion is identified with 'total social capital' yielding an 'aggregate surplus value' then in }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  this mass is logically presupposed to the distribution of surplus value through the formation of a general rate of profit and prices of production. For Moseley, then, }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  is at the level of  'capital in general' until the problem of distribution is addressed. That the term disappears is not important when one sees similar terms such as the distinction between inner nature and surface appearance. (2003, page/s)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx700 \tql\tx1400 \tql\tx2120 \tql\tx2820 \tql\tx3540 \tql\tx4240 \tql\tx4940 \tql\tx5660 \tql\tx6360 \tql\tx7080 \tql\tx7780 \tql\tx8480 {\f2002 \fs22 \i Fineschi}{\f2002 \fs22  takes up the 'logical' definition of  'capital in general' outlined in Marx's }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Gr}{\f2002 \fs22  plan allocating the materials to universality, particularity and singularity. Even though }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  does not explicitly say so, these logical categories are still implicit in its articulation. What changed with the development of Marx's research was a reallocation of the material, so that 'accumulation' was brought up to the level of the universal while}{\f2002 \fs22  'interest' was held back. (2001, page/s)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx700 \tql\tx1400 \tql\tx2120 \tql\tx2820 \tql\tx3540 \tql\tx4240 \tql\tx4940 \tql\tx5660 \tql\tx6360 \tql\tx7080 \tql\tx7780 \tql\tx8480 {\f2002 \fs22 Another version of Marx\'92s logical scheme is given by }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Arthur,}{\f2002 \fs22  where the logical ^general^ pertains not only to the three volumes of }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 , but itself divides into a specific moment of generality instantiated in Volume I, with particularity assigned to Volume II and singularity to Volume III. (2002, page/s)\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 \i References\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx220 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 {\f2002 \fs22 Arthur, Christopher J. \'91Capital in General and Marx\'92s }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital}{\f2002 \fs22 \'92 in }{\f2002 \fs22 \i The Culmination of Capital}{\f2002 \fs22  eds M. Campbell & G. Reuten, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2002, page from - to.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f22 Fineschi, Roberto }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Ripartire da Marx. Processo storico ed economia politica nella teoria del \'93capitale\'94}{\f2002 \fs22 , Napoli, La Citt\'e0 del Sole \'96 Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici 2001\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f2002 \fs22 Heinrich, Michael }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen \'d6konomie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition}{\f2002 \fs22 , 3. Auflage, M\'fcnster 2003.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f2002 \fs22 Moseley, Fred 'Capital in General and Marx's Logical method: A Response to Heinrich's Critique' in }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Capital&Class}{\f2002 \fs22  journal? annual? 56 annual set? Summer 1995, page from - to\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f2002 \fs22 M\'fcller, Manfred  }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Auf dem Wege zum \'84Kapital\'93. Zur Entwicklung des Kapitalbegriffs von Marx in den Jahren 1857 \'96 1863}{\f2002 \fs22 ; Akademie Verlag Berlin/DDR 1978.\par
}\pard \s2 \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f2002 \fs22 Rosdolsky, Roman }{\f2002 \fs22 \i Entstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen \'91Kapital\'92,}{\f2002 \fs22  Europ\'e4ische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am Main, 1968.                       }{\f22 \b Christopher J. Arthur\par
}\pard \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f22 \b \par
}\pard \ql \sl360 \tql\tx0 \tql\tx720 \tql\tx1440 \tql\tx2160 \tql\tx2880 \tql\tx3600 \tql\tx4320 \tql\tx5040 \tql\tx5760 \tql\tx6480 \tql\tx7200 \tql\tx7920 \tql\tx8640 \tql\tx9360 {\f22 \b \par
}}

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England