xxxxxxx99 at xxxxxxx.xxx
Wed Sep 9 21:09:05 MDT 2009
Rakesh wrote "Marx explains himself well enough that
further study of Hegel's logic would shed no light at all on what he is
While I strongly disagree with this ultra-pragmatist way of putting things, (Marx spoke highly of Hegel, yeah yeah recognizing his bourgeois limitations....particularly in a letter to Engels he tells him that he had just re-read the Logic in order to get ready with the writing of the preparatory manuscripts to Capital,) at the same time, I find the argument self-defeating. Presumably, you don't want to read Hegel because it's useless to understand Marx's conception of capital, but then if you really want to take that point in all seriousness, the point is not that you read Marx, but that you consciously appropiate the objective necessity of capital, by yourself, that is, by following the dialectical method whose aim is to "ideally reproduce the real life of the subject matter" (which is what Marx did from my point of view) or anyone you find true to the task.
But even then, it sounds like you haven't read the Logic, is it not "dishonest" to say it's useless?
Rakesh wrote: "Just read Marx. Carefully.
Commodities are a unity of use value and exchange value. A commodity as
a value unites the two as the exchange value for the owner and use value
for the purchaser (David Harvey puts it well), but the value form
externalizes the contradiction immanent in every commodity--it is both a
use value and exchange value, but it can't be both at the same time--...."
Carefully reading the excerpt you cite, I find, "The process then differentiates them into commodities and money, and thus produces an external opposition corresponding to the internal opposition inherent in them, as being <<AT ONCE>> use-values and values"
Rakesh wrote: "Marx is not playing dialectical games here. He is trying to understand
precisely the position of money in the circulation of commodities (and
he loosely borrows the Hegelian idea of a unity of opposites in his
analysis of the value form)."
I believe you would have to tell me what the dialectic is in order to subtantiate this claim. Without reading Hegel's Logic, that is.
Rakesh wrote: "Marx stands on his own."
This is plain ridiculous, on the face of it. What does that mean?
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.
More information about the Marxism