Re: [OPE] grundrisse manuscript

From: christopher arthur <arthurcj@waitrose.com>
Date: Sat Jan 09 2010 - 10:47:23 EST

Hi Howard
What you are recalling is the 1861-63 Ms (MECW 30-34) which does have consecutive paging going over 2000. Marx didn't consecutively number the G but relied on separate paging for each notebook each around 40 pp. I tried to add them up but might have missed Bastiat and Carey. If you say around 350 pages you wont be far out. As I said already Marx got an amazing number of words on each page.
Chris
christopher j. arthur
arthurcj@waitrose.com
http://www.chrisarthur.net/

On 9 Jan 2010, at 13:30, D. Gmen wrote:

> Hi Howard,
> I meant printed pages.
>
> D.Gmen
> http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
> http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: howard engelskirchen <he31@verizon.net>
> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 9, 2010 3:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [OPE] grundrisse manuscript
>
> Hi Dogen and Chris,
>
> Thanks for the help. The information you've given is good enough. What I meant to ask was how many inked pages there were -- were the 60 times 16 pages you refer to Dogen inked pages or printed pages that included several inked pages. I thought I recalled manuscript numbers in the 17 or 18 hundreds or over 2000.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> howard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: christopher arthur
> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPE] grundrisse manuscript
>
> hello Howard
> I'm not sure what you are asking because all the Ms is in his hand - seven notebooks with separate pagination, MECW says it amount to 50 plus printer's sheets. If that was used as quarto(as it looks in photos) that would give more than 400 leaves. You'll see MECW takes 3pp to print one of Marx's Ms sides. So it takes more than 800.
> Chris
> christopher j. arthur
> arthurcj@waitrose.com
> http://www.chrisarthur.net/
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Jan 2010, at 17:43, howard engelskirchen wrote:
>
>> I wonder if someone has ready to mind the approximate number of total manuscript pages devoted to the Grundrisse in Marx's hand.
>>
>> howard
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
>> To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: [OPE] Peer production and abundance
>>
>>
>>> Paul C,
>>>
>>> the system is exploitative, we work in a social division of labour that is organised to exploit: without being exploited we would not (for the masses) be allowed to live, OR more narrowly, without the exploitation of the masses the conditions of the labour aristocracy and new petty bourgeoise would not be provided for (of course I know there are plenty of those IN these sections of the population - eg academics - who deny such social differences and lay claim to better conditions because of 'science' or some such fetishised idea). Thus all of this is predicated by exploitation and usually works towards the reinforcement of the system.
>>>
>>> However I don't doubt that all this inventive activity is a part of the process by which the development of the forces of production constantly strains against the actual relations, its splitting at the seams, so to speak. For some time bourgeoise state employment plays a role if it can tax its way forward, but this is transitory.
>>>
>>> The whole analysis must be of the social/material contradictions. That capitalism finds it more and more difficult to incorporate in any seemingly 'rational' way will bring about a social revolution - which of course needs its political leadership based in the exploited masses. If capitalism can't adjust and adapt such activity, can't use it draw on it, then we shall see if it becomes part of the armoury of demands, and capacities of a working class movement that will be the basis for reducing imperialism.
>>>
>>> Paul Bl
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
>>> To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:54 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [OPE] Peer production and abundance
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would agree that the production of GPL material does depend on those producing it having both free time and some other revenue stream.
>>>> I do not agree that it depends on the exploitation of other workers though.
>>>
>>>> In some cases it is work done in the evenings, and in others it is work done in academic institutions or government laboratories.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of a programmer employed by Nokia who writes software for peer to peer file sharing in their evenings, this does not depend
>>>> on the exploitation of workers elsewhere. The Nokia worker will have been paid for the labour power that they sell to Nokia during the day
>>>> and that labour power will have been exploited by Nokia. If the programmer choses to go and help Pirate Bay during the evenings
>>>> as voluntary work, this is not itself dependent on their explitation by Nokia. No surplus value from the work at Nokia goes into
>>>> the production of the free software..
>>>> They do need an income to live, but the free software is produced out of their unpaid time and is thus a tapping of a potential surplus
>>>> product that could only be extracted by capital as a result of a longer working day. Since the working week is legally limited,
>>>> it is rather the constraints placed on capitalist exploitation by the limitation of the working day that allow the production of the
>>>> free software.
>>>> In the case of software produced in academic institutions that is placed in the public domain, like the BSD Unix operating system,
>>>> and many Unix utilities developed for that, then that labour was paid for out of taxes, and placement in the public domain
>>>> was a condition of the tax funded work ( those conditions on US grants have I believe been changed in a way less favourable
>>>> to the public domain).
>>>> The model of software funded out of tax revenues seems to be one that could be retained under socialism, but the free and voluntary
>>>> work done is spare time is also something that would presumably be encouraged in the future.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Bullock [paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:17 PM
>>>> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: [OPE] Peer production and abundance
>>>>
>>>> Where marginal costs of providing some software is effectively zero, but operations require purchase of other tied/ joint commodities I don't see where this sort of innovation leads us to 'socialism'.. it becomes a marketing issue.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore if the production of much software/ sourceware is actually done in the free time of the professional middle classes within richer states then this is predicated on the exploitation of workers labour power elsewhere, ie my free time is someone elses surplus labour time performed. So we havn't got out of the capital relation.
>>>>
>>>> The abolition of large scale private property and the formulation of basic democratic social planning is the essential prerequisite.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Bullock
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: GERALD LEVY<mailto:gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
>>>> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list<mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:07 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: [OPE] Peer production and abundance
>>>>
>>>>> I think there is merit to the argument that the 'open source' mode of
>>>>> production conflicts with and potentially undermines capitalist property
>>>>> relations. But a systematic theory of this mode of production has yet to
>>>>> be formulated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dave Z:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I would call it a type (or form or pattern or system) of production, not a
>>>> 'mode of production". Use of the latter expression is unnecessarily confusing, imo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the 'open source' mode of production is to become the dominant mode,
>>>>> the question arises: what share of the total output of an economy could
>>>>> actually be produced in this way?
>>>>
>>>> Except for the caveat which I referred to above, that's a good question.
>>>>
>>>> In solidarity, Jerry
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ope mailing list
>>>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>>>
>>>> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ope mailing list
>>>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ope mailing list
>>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> _______________________________________________
>
> ope mailing list
>
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jan 9 10:49:15 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST