[OPE-L:685] Re: skip Part 1?

Paul Zarembka (ECOPAULZ@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Sat, 9 Dec 1995 05:36:22 -0800

[ show plain text ]

On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, JERRY LEVY wrote:

> Paul: You still haven't told us *why* you consider Part 1 "the most
> problematic of Capital."

Jerry, A beginning source would be Althusser's preface to the French
edition of Capital, which appears in English translation in Lenin and
Philosophy and other Essays. I just looked for my copy and it is missing
from where it is supposed to (I hope I did not loan it to someone who did
not return it!). Just to wet (or is it whet) your appetite, consider the
division between use-value and exchange-value of a commodity. Now there
is absolutely no reason bifurcate value into use- and exchange- value.
Why not label the first utility or usefulness or something of the sort?
Such a bifurcation is an Hegelian form of reasoning and is unnecssary.

Another source would be Ajit Sinha, "The Concept of Value in Marx: A
Reinterpretation", Research in Political Economy, 1990, where he makes
an argument that "there is a sharp break in the problematic of the first
three chapters and the general discourse of Capital".

I hope I have been of some help. If I had more time, I would try to give
the answer in my own words (but am going out of the country for 3 weeks
in 2 weeks and have a number of pressing things to do).

Paul Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo