====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Andrew wrote: > One other thing I would say about it is that whereas I was once intimidated > by the book and felt that I should start with other works by Marx that seem > somehow easier (such as > the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts), after getting about halfway > through Vol 1 of Capital I would actually reverse course and say that > newcomers can really benefit from > starting with that work, because while > it's long, its exposition is manifestly clear and methodical, and because you > are able to understand the phenomena Marx talks about in the > early works by virtue of the systematic understanding he gives you in Capital. I agree with this 100%. For one thing, Marx's thought, like that of any other serious thinker, underwent changes over time. So by reading the 1844 manuscripts, one isn't even getting the content of Marx's arguments from _Capital_, but basically some rather different arguments. There are also some people who argue for some kind of sequential reading, regarding the early works as kind of a "key" to the later ones. I would argue the opposite, that the early, preparatory works are better illuminated by familiarity with the later ones. And _Capital_ is also just a joy to read. It's not really difficult, but as you say, it's methodical, so reading it also entails paying attention to the development of an argument, which I guess sometimes tests people's patience in the way that Marx's shorter works don't. Shane Hopkinson wrote: > I went thru it under the guidance of David Harvey's lectures (and his 'Companion to Marx's "Capital"'). Of course he's not neutral but as a guide to the text he'd be hard to beat. I think once Heinrich's book is out in English it might well be regarded as the "definitive" secondary literature, but then again, I'm also something of a partisan of Heinrich's "monetary" reading of Marx's value theory. Heinrich makes a very convincing case that money and credit are central to Marx's conception, and not epiphenomena that "conceal" underlying social relationships. Rather, they **constitute** those social relationships. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
