[OPE-L:2743] Re: ONE reference to Hegel by Marx, C.W. Vol. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 08:31:43 EDT

[ show plain text ]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:

> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:04:11 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:2726] ONE reference to Hegel by Marx, C.W. Vol. 30, 31, 32,
> 33, 34
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> > 2. One very important piece of evidence that has not yet been mentioned
> > is the Manuscript of 1861-63. This manuscript begins with a second draft
> > of Volume 1 of Capital (Parts 2-6). This draft has only recently been
> > published - in German in the early 1980 and in English in the late 1980s
> > (Marx-Engels Collected, Vol. 30) (unfortunately, it has not yet published
> > in Spanish)....
> I just checked both the name references and the cited sources and only
> found ONE reference to Hegel between 1860 and 1864, including the Vol. 30
> Fred cites. This amounts to one reference in some 2500+ pages.


I didn't mean that there were explicit references to Hegel in this
manuscript, but rather that Marx employed concepts that appear to be
similar to Hegel's (transformation, contradiction, self-valorizing value,
unity of labor process and valorization process, etc.) I realize that
non-Hegelian interpretations could be given to these terms. But that is
why I think it is important to understand Hegel's meanings of these terms
in order to better understand Marx's meanings.

In looking back over vol. 30, I realize that the language is less Hegelian
than I had remembered. The language is closer to vol. 1 than to the
Grundrisse. So I agree that this draft does not provide obvious evidence
of the continuing influence of Hegel. That would require a closer

But, again, I see the logical structure as essentially the same in all
three drafts (with some develdopment of details). The less frequent
Hegelian language deos not change the basic logical structure. So the
question remains: to what extent is this logical structure based, at least
in part, on Hegel's logic?




This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT