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

[Andy Blunden]

Marx addresses this in the passage well-known to CHATters,
about abstract and concrete:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 20/10/2017 11:05 AM, Martin John Packer wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>