Re: [OPE-L] History as Spiral

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 15:32:50 EST

Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote:

> Dogan, is the citation right?
> Why does Marx say "but gives him individual property" instead of
> collective property? Co-operation or possession in common seem to be
> the opposite of individual property!
> Paulo
> Dogan Goecmen wrote:
>>  Dear David in Capital, Vol. 1, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation,
>> Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation,
>> in the paragraph before the last paragraph Marx says:  *The
>> capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode
>> of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the
>> first negation of individual private property, as founded on the
>> labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the
>> inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the
>> negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property
>> for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the
>> acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the
>> possession in common of the land and of the means of
>> production.*See:
>> Karl Marx, Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers, Vol. I, p. 715.If
>> more references needed please let us know. There are many similar
>> passages in various other works of Marx and Engels. Since you put in
>> your email Marx on the first place I selected a passage from
>> Capital. CheersDogan In einer eMail vom 08.12.2006 22:40:26
>> Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt dlaibman@SCIENCEANDSOCIETY.COM:
>>      Dear OPE comrades,
>>        Folks on this list are *so good* at tracking things
>>      down, that I could
>>      not resist passing this one along.
>>        One of my colleagues at *Science & Society,* Barbara
>>      Foley, asks: where
>>      does Marx (I think she would include Engels as well) put
>>      forward the
>>      idea that history proceeds in spiral form -- i.e.,
>>      negation of the
>>      negation, with elements present in the first-posited stage
>>      returning, in
>>      a "higher" state, in a third stage?
>>        Any references would be appreciated.
>>        In solidarity,
>>           David
>>      David Laibman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST