Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 06:11:23 EDT

Pressure of other work has preventd me from entering this interesting
discussion but I am conscious that Fred's paper has been circulated which
includes a critique of me. I just want to say this is written from Fred's
perspective and doesnt cover my position as fully expressed in the two
papers I have in The Culmination of Capital* eds  M Campbell and G Reuten
2002. In my examination of Grundrisse I discovered Marx employed no less
than 5 DIFFERENT definitions of cig so any discussion of what was dropped
(or retained) has to say which one (or all) is referred to. There is little
textual evidence for Fred's own definition as total capital - the one place
in Gr is also a ref to uberhaupt not im allgemein (the usual stricter
term); the tripartite logical distintion between gnerality, particularity
and singularity occurs early (Gr 105) and seems to fall out in favour of a
definition of the general as 'common' and the differences occasioned by
competition of many capitals yet he undercuts this by references to the
necessity of capital appearing as many capitals. MH is right the early plan
had 'interest' in CiG but this drops out fairly quickly leaving the third
book of Cig just as 'Capital and Profit' (Note to Mike L: profit here is
your surface form of SV yet clearly positioned by Marx in Cig). When Marx
does his Capital drafts he does bring in competition while at the same time
referring to a further book on competition. I agree then with those who try
and make a distinction between a level at which competition is form
determining eg of prices of produiction and where it would deal with things
like comparitive advantage. in a special book.
I attach a rough draft of something I am working on about Cig
My own reconstruction in *Culmination* tries to restore the tripartite
logical division. Hence I distinguish between the broader sense of CIG
contrasted with the competition book (and this I think covers production
price but also I say could be expanded to include interest commercial
profit but not rent), and More narrowly I argue that Vol 1 is at the level
of the general, V2 at the level of the particular, and much of V3 at the
level of the singular. I also agree with rakesh that the whole system is in
some sense an individual So the enemy is not a class of capitalist firms
but capital as such, a hydra headed monster organised through the capital
(The discussion between Andy and co is not about Cig any more so I will
intervene separately)

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 21 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT