[OPE-L:2672] Re: Proof from Marx that Hegel is NOT required to understand him?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 23:44:39 EST

[ show plain text ]

Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said, on 04/01/00 at 10:23 PM:

>> REPEAT: Sieber's 1871 book is a SUBSTITUTE for *Capital*, according to
>> Marx. It is in black and white.

>I don't think it is black and white at all.

>The quote in question asserts that Wagner could have "familiarized
>himself with the difference between me (Marx, JL) and Ricardo" by either
>reading _Capital_ or Sieber. Thus he is *not* saying that Sieber's book
>is a "substitute" for _Capital_ but is rather asserting that it is an
>alternative way to understand the difference between Ricardo and Marx.

I stand corrected insofar I doubt that Sieber is discussing ALL the issues
in Capital. But on the key issue of the methodological difference between
Ricardo and Marx, Marx says EITHER read me or read Sieber. Point blank,
no qualification! And Sieber's is a non-Hegelian reading.

>Considering the fact that the book by Sieber was (evidently) largely on
>Ricardo, since Wagner had already read Marx (badly), then he would see
>how Ricardo's theory was different from Marx's by learning more about
>Ricardian theory from Sieber's book.

Don't forget the compliment to Sieber in the Afterword to get a rounded
picture of what Marx is conveying. Each taken separately could be
explained away and ignored. But things start adding up when you read Marx
repeating his same high opinion of Sieber 8 years later. Actually, we
could turn the coin over and ask for ANY OTHER example of Marx
complimenting a reading of *Capital* and try to work out whether that
reading is or is not a reading conditioned or not dialectics and/or Hegel.
But I don't know of any.

>Nonetheless, I agree that it would be interesting to read Sieber's book.
>I can't read Russian, though.

My wife does, as does my Marxist colleague Jim Lawler (who translated
Lenin on Luxemburg for my accumulation paper). So, if and when I get it
I'll be able to deal with it.

I would like to repeat that this issue of Marx and Sieber is very much
UNDER-INVESTIGATED but very suggestive. It cannot be easily "explained
away" -- or at least I'm putting it out on the list to see what others

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:42 EDT