G'day Jim,
> 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.<
All of which is importantly right, but then Marx didn't finish his
self-appointed task - the six-book whole came up three and a half short;
mainly because Marx always took way longer to finish a project than he
imagined (a shortcoming that makes me feel very close to the big fella).
*Capital*, such as we have it, is the story of the dynamic essence of the
exchange relation, and I'm sure the implicit would have become more explicit
had Marx's thoroughly used-up body gone the distance. It was there in The
German Ideology, after all.
Cheers,
Rob.
