[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Отв: Re: Object oriented activity and communication

[Martin John Packer]

Right, Marx was himself well aware of this difference. My point is that we have begin to talk about “the start” of Marx’s analysis, and about its “stages,” but these should not be equated with the order of the treatment in Capital.

Martin




On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

   Of course the method of presentation must differ in form
   from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the
   material in detail, to analyse its different forms of
   development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only
   after this work is done, can the actual movement be
   adequately described. If this is done successfully, if
   the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as
   in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a
   mere a priori construction.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 20/10/2017 3:23 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
Seems to me that if we’re going to talk about the details of Marx’s analysis we need to look not at Capital but at the Grundrisse. The two have virtually opposite organizations; it’s clear that the order of presentation in Capital was not the order of analysis.

Martin