Re: [OPE-L] request

Date: Wed Jul 05 2006 - 16:19:02 EDT


I believe this is the post you wanted to see.  Do you have any
opinions about White's argument ... or his book?

In solidarity, Jerry
Brooklin, ME

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] ISMT Conference in July on Marx and MEGA 2
From:    "Paul Zarembka" <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU>
Date:    Sat, July 1, 2006 2:30 pm

J.D. White's provocative argument is that "Results of the Immediate
Process of Production" was left out of the published version of Vol. I
because 'subsumption', its main theoretical concept, didn't work to
link Vol. I and Vol. III.  'Subsumption' was even deleted where Marx
had been in drafts for earlier parts of Vol. I.

Sometimes it is argued the dropping of 'Results' was not a significant
act on Marx's part.  This avoids issues at stake.

Paul Z.

Quoting Michael Heinrich <m.heinrich@PROKLA.DE>:

> Jerry,
> the case is a little bit more complicated. When we look at the
> edited
> three volumes of "Capital" we can say, that the draft of the edited
> vol.
> 3 was written before the drafts of the edited vol. 2.  But Marx
> wrote
> much more than the drafts, which Engels used for the edition.
> Therefore
> the order of writing is not just vol.3 - vol. 1 - vol. 2.
> In 1863-65 Marx wrote drafts for all three (theoretical) books of
> "Capital" (we must distinguish volume and book to understand Marx
> letters correctly. He planned to write four books, in three volumes,
> but
> the content of the volumes changed). He started 1863/64 with the
> draft
> of book I (the only part which remained is "Results of the immediate
> process of production"). After finishing the draft of book I, he
> continued with book III (1864/65), but rather soon (during the first
> three chapters, what became later the first three sections) he
> interrupted and wrote a draft of book II. After finishing this draft
> he
> continued with book  III and stopped his work at the end of 1865
> (with
> the unfinished chapter on classes). In January 1866 he started to
> prepare book I for publishing (he thought, that vol.1 could include
> book
> I and II). After publishing book I in vol. 1 (1867) he tried to
> prepare
> vol. 2 (which now should include book II and III) and for this he
> started reworking his draft on book II and a number of new drafts
> for
> book II emerged. When Engels edited vol. 2 (containing book 2) he
> used
> only the more recent manuscripts and not the manuscript of 1863-64.
> But
> for book III, Engels must use the "old" manuscript of 1864/65.
> The precise order of writing was determined by different factors:
> what
> was clear for Marx and, what was an open question (for example that
> Marx
> in 1864 started with book III after finishing book I may have had
> the
> reason, that he wanted to write down something what was clear to
> him,
> but then he realized, that he also needed some results of book II
> and
> therefore he interrupted the work on book III) and especially in the
> seventies the wish to publish vol. 2  determined Marx to concentrate
> on
> book II.
> In solidarity
> Michael
> ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU schrieb:
> >Michael H et al,
> >
> >What do we know about _why_ Marx wrote the drafts in the order in
> >which he did?  I.e. _why_ did he write the drafts for what became
> >Volume 3 of _Capital_ before writing Volume I?; why did he write
> the
> >drafts for most of what became Volume 2 after writing the drafts
> for
> >what became Volume 3 and Volume 1?
> >
> >My supposition -- subject to correction -- is that _it didn't
> matter_
> >what order he wrote the volumes of _Capital_, but that still
> doesn't
> >answer the question _why_, does it?
> >
> >In solidarity, Jerry
> >Somesville, MDI

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT