Jurriaan Bendien (email@example.com)
Sun, 24 Oct 1999 01:09:41 +0100
Yet, the state-form
>is abstracted from in _Capital_ even though it represents a necessary form
>of existence for capitalism. This means, from a systematic dialectical
>perspective, that this form must be analyzed and incorporated into the
>reconstruction of capitalism in thought.
I see your point, but that is only one approach to take. Come to that, many
aspects of bourgeois society are not incorporated into Marx's analysis of
capitalism, notably the sphere of human reproduction, the family,
consumption and so forth (which presumably would belong to civil society
within your scheme). Suppose that you succeeded in formulating a
dialectical theory of the bourgeois state "in general", what elements would
it actually contain, and would it be at all useful to us ? Seems to me that
Marx succeeded in isolating the main, non-contingent and enduring systemic
properties of capitalism quite well, what more can you ask ?
>btw, Mandel (following Grossmann and Rosdolsky) held to a "4-book-plan"
My opinion is that Mandel, Grossman and Rosdolsky are correct, insofar as
you can be (since Marx had far more plans than he could hope to realise).
My general impression is that, with due respect, you are mixing up methods
of investigation with methods of presentation. imo, Marx is far less
"systematic" in his dialectical reconstruction than you appear to give him
credit for. Often he could not actually decide how to present his material.
imo, there is no single correct "dialectical reconstruction", and if there
is, Kozo Uno probably had the best shot at it. Let us remember also Marx's
own book is about "Capital" and not about "bourgeois society".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:33 EST