[OPE-L:7013] Re: Capital & Class

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 06:30:48 EDT

A. re [7008]:

Further examination (using the "search" function at the
http://www.marxists.org site) shows cumulative references 
to the following terms in all 3 volumes of _Capital_ 
(writings by Marx only):

terms                                         # of references
---------------------------------------           --------------------

CLASS COERCION                             -0-                           
CLASS CONFLICT                              -0-   
CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS                 -0-                           
CLASS CONTRADICTION                    -0-    
CLASS DIVISION/FRAGMENTATION    -0-  (a)                    
CLASS-FOR-ITSELF                           -0-                           
CLASS FORMATION                           -l-   (b)                        
CLASS-IN-ITSELF                               -0-                           
CLASS INTEREST                              -0-                           
CLASS MOVEMENT                           -0-                           
CLASS ORGANIZATION                      -0-
CLASS POLARIZATION                       -0-
CLASS RELATION                              -2-  (c)
CLASS STRATIFICATION                    -l-   (d)
CLASS STRUGGLE                            -0-
CLASS STRUCTURE                          -0-
CLASS UNITY                                    -0-
CLASS WAR                                     -0-

(a) Not in Untermann translation, but in 
Fernbach translation there is reference in the
last para. of _Capital_ (Ch. 52, l026) to the
"infinite fragmentation of interests and positions"
of the 3 great classes.
(b) VI, CH 26: "the capital class in course of
(c) Vol II, Ch l & Ch 4
(d) Vol 3, Ch 52. Fernbach translation is "class


B. re Howard's [70ll]:  

I agree with you that had Marx begun  _Capital_ with "classes"  
it would would have been,  like "population",  an  "empty phrase"  
from which all of the categories necessary for grasping the bourgeois 
mode of production and developing a critique of political economy
could not have unfolded.  In that sense, it would have allowed
a superficial-only comprehension of capitalism. One has to
recall that  the "starting point" is crucial in a systematic 
dialectical reconstruction of a subject matter.  More than that,
however, *every*  category that must be grasped to fully 
comprehend the subject matter (capitalism) has an appropriate
(logical) *place* in that systematic presentation.  The question is: 
where  is the place for an examination of *class*  -- as a 'rich' category
in which rather than the presumption of simple unity alone, there
is an exposition of difference and then unity-in-difference (or, 
expressing this somewhat differently,  a transition from 
generality to particularity to a deepened comprehension of 
singularity.)   That place is not Ch. 52 of _Capital_.  Rather, Marx only 
*introduces* that subject there: indeed he only asks -- *but does not 
answer* -- "the question to be answered next" ["What makes a 
class?"]  and *notes* -- *but does not explain* -- class fragmentation.  
Those who are familiar with the structure of Hegel's works  will note 
what Marx is trying to do here: he is *introducing the next subject* 
(the subject  matters of Books II and III.)   

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT