[OPE-L:1575] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory

Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Sun, 24 Oct 1999 11:28:13 -0400 (EDT)

Re Paul z's [OPE-L:1574]:

> I offer the following hypothesis: Defending the six-book thesis is in
> fact asking for Marx's permission from the grave.

Then I offer the following counter-hypotheses:

1) Opposing the six-book-plan is in fact asking for Marx's permission
   from the grave to depart from his plans.

2) Remaining agnostic to the 6-book-plan question, is in fact remaining
   agnostic to Marx's plans.

> My "Accumulation of Capital, its Definition" paper which I posted Oct. 14
> argues that the very definition of accumulation is ambiguous in Marx and,
> after studying Lenin and Luxemburg on accumulation of capital, offers a
> definition. We debated accumulation of capital a long time ago on this
> list; now I have researched my position much more carefully and made
> progress from where I was then.

Yes, I remember our -- extended! -- discussion on that subject (if others
are interested, they can go to the archives and look under April, 1996).
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read the paper since it was sent in
encoded form.
> I will finally add that those of those who think that there is an
> "epistemological break" in Marx date it AFTER the Grundrisse. That break
> is centered on Marx's coquetting with Hegel even through the first
> chapters of Capital, Vol. 1 (Part One was, however, based on his 1859
> book). Thus, the "rococo ornamentation" comment of Luxemburg--remember
> rococo means, in part, "superficial elegance", and also means "antiquated,
> outmoded"-- is an exceptionally apt use of language. I had not heretofore
> realized a connection between Althusser and Luxemburg. NB: this final
> note is NOT integral to my reactions to the "missing book" discussion.

On your NB: I think it might be crucial, though, to the manner in which
you have interpreted arguments for "missing books". Indeed, we have seen
-- again and again -- in this discussion how different perspectives on
Marx's methodology lead to different interpretations of what Marx was
saying (and what he was not saying).

On the "epistemological break": As I recall, Althusser noted --

     "Hegelianisms", "Feuerbachanisms", and "Humanisms", oh my!

in all of Marx's works save a few pages in the "Marginal Notes on

In solidarity, Jerry

PS: Thanks for the information about Juan Pablo Perez Sainz. Nowadays,
people are using the Net to track down "missing" people. His name sounds a
little unusual. Maybe it might be worthwhile trying to see if he has

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:33 EST