Re: [OPE-L] Marxist Political Economy

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Fri Apr 22 2005 - 10:16:56 EDT

> Even when there is no mention of "critique" (besides it is mentioned as
> subtitle of the whole book) the question is, in which way Marx did this
> examination? Was it the same way, as Ricardo did? (Who probably would
> agree about the subject) I think there is a main difference not only in
> the results of Ricardo and Marx but also in the way of analysing and
> presenting the subject.

Hi Michael H,

Marx's examination -- in terms of the way he analyzed and presented the
subject -- was indeed different from that of Ricardo.  Two (of many)
differences included:

1) Marx was a revolutionary socialist (what he called a "scientific
socialist"  and communist).  That is, his method of analyzing and presenting
the subject has to be understood in the context of his revolutionary

2) Ricardo wasn't influenced by Hegel;  Marx was.

> That the project, what Marx undertakes, is at the same time (not as
> separated subjects) exposť and critique, is in my view the real Hegelian
> heritage (instead of "laws" of dialectics) and it is less understood in
> Marxist tradition.

There are certainly works by Hegel that could be thought of as
critique  -- his _Lectures on the History of Philosophy_  and _Lectures
on the Philosophy of Religion_ come to mind.  And, certainly that is a
*part of* his _Phenomenology of Spirit_ and the _Science of Logic_.
However, his theory can also be presented largely sans critique, as he
did in the _Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences_.    By comparing
the *structure*  of Hegel's presentation in the latter and the systematic
transition among categories and subjects to Marx's  major works on
political economy that one can see a  Hegelian influence that is less
understood in the Marxist tradition.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT