From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 21:16:48 EDT
Hi Riccardo. > I agree: but I think that capitalism must be first analyzed looking > at a system made only by workers and capitalist firms. You are referring, though, to the order of the *presentation*. Let us be clear, though, that an analysis of the emergence of money *in capitalism* requires a comprehension of the role of the state in the monetary system . I, of course, agree that the subject of Capital (in Marx's 6-book-plan, Book I) should be presented before the subject of The State (Book IV) because of the character of the subject (capitalism) that is being explained. To say that one should first present an explanation independently of the state *in no way* means that the emergence of money and the state are not intrinsically linked. Rather, it is simply a consequence of a layered presentation which is an expression of the method of abstraction. Indeed, within that layered presentation there is an analytical *requirement* to explain how the state impacts this topic. In solidarity, Jerry PS to Costas: no need for apologies about 'Gerry'. I don't get offended that easily.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT