[was: Re: [PEN-L:11203] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the enemy's statistics]
At 09:31 AM 5/4/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I attempt to prove that the relation [between Marx & Hegel] is more
>profound and more systematic than hitherto appreciated.
Anyone who's into this stuff must read Mike Lebowitz's BEYOND CAPITAL. He
links Marx & Hegel, but notes that Marx's dialectic in CAPITAL is
incomplete, i.e., one-sided. In my MONTHLY REVIEW review of Mike's book, I
make the following analogy: in CAPITAL, Marx talks about Hegel's
Master/Servant dialectic by analyzing only the Master (i.e., Capital). That
is, Marx analyzes the laws of motion of capital without analyzing the laws
of motion of labor. The latter is assumed to be passive, unorganized, an
object that's worked upon by capital but has little effect on capital's
operations. (For example, Marx assumes that the value of labor-power is
_given_ and fixed throughout most of volume I.) Of course, Marx hoped that
his one-sided analysis would help mobilize the other side to resist and
eventually take power, but many Marxists have followed Marx's presentation
to fetishize capital at the expense of labor.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
