[OPE-L:3629] Re: "Labor Theory of Value"--not used by Marx!

Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 06:33:22 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Gerald Levy wrote:

> "[...] I am *powerless to overcome*, unless it be by forewarning
> and forearming those readers who zealously seek the truth. There is
> no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the
> fatiguing climb of its steep path have a chance of gaining its
> luminous summits" (Ibid, emphasis added, JL).
> This suggests clearly that Marx viewed the method of analysis, apparent in
> the first chapters, as *indespensible* for the understanding of his work.
> It would also seem to contradict the belief by many (e.g. Althusser,
> Sweezy) that the first chapters can be skipped as they are filled with too
> many "Hegelianisms" and "Feuerbachianisms" (Althusser) or are too
> difficult and non-essential (Sweezy).
> Was this what you had in mind, Paul? :-)

Jerry, I agree with the first part of your posting and have not reproduced
it, but I do not understand this second quote. What do Althusser and
Sweezy have to do with the quote above which you cite? The quote could
even be used to say that Marx himself always realized that his theory was
in process, i.e., that there is never a "final" theory. If so,
criticizing the Hegelianisms of Part I is still consistent with the quote.

Put another way, in what way is the method of analysis so "apparent in
the first chapters" "indispensable", and how is that method so directly
connected to Hegel?

Paul Z.