[ show plain text ]
"Fred B. Moseley" <email@example.com> said, on 04/06/00 at 08:31 AM:
>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
>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?
First, I appreciate the tone of your two responses to my postings. I am
on another list where my 'accumulation' paper was atttacked in some 25
single-space pages because of its not being Hegelian and I am pretty fed
up with hearing that everything must be connected to Hegel to be worth
bothering with. I will attempt to answer at least some of your questions
on Althusser, responding separately later today.
Regarding the above, are you referring to the total logical structure of
*Capital, Vol. 1*? Or do you mean, Vols. 1, 2, and 3 together? or WITHIN
each part of *Capital*, e.g., "Production of Relative Surplus Value"?
If you mean each part, then Part 1 of Volume 1 (perhaps some of Part 2)
needs a distinct discussion from later Parts. For the later Parts, I
don't see any necessity for rendering them as Hegelian.
If you mean Vol. 1 taken as a whole, my quick reading would agree that
Vol. 30 is indeed closer to 1867 than to the *Grundrisse*. But Vol. 30
does not include Parts 1, 6, 7, and 8 of *Vol. 1*. Of course, this is
understandable since these drafts are exactly that, drafts of work in
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT