Roman Rosdolsky - The Making of Marxs Capital

The Making of Marxs Capital — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work

Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "The Making of Marxs Capital" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.

Light

Font size:

↓

↑

Georgia Tahoma Arial Verdana

Reset

Interval:

↓

↑

Bookmark:

Make

1234567...128

The Making of Marxs Capital

Roman Rosdolsky

THE MAKING OF
MARXS CAPITAL

Translated by Pete Burgess

First published in Germany by Europaische

Verlagsanstalt GmbH as Entstehungsgeschichte des

Marxschen Kapital

Copyright Europische Verlagsanstalt,

Frankfurt am Main 1968

This translation first published 1977 by Pluto Press

First paperback (abridged) edition published 1980

by Pluto Press

Second (unabridged) paperback edition published

1989 by Pluto Press in two volumes

Copyright Pluto Press 1977

ISBN 9780861049158 vol 1 paperback

ISBN 0861049152 vol 1 paperback

ISBN 9781783716395 Kindle eBook

ISBN 9781783716388 EPUB eBook

Printed and bound by Antony Rowe Ltd, Eastbourne

Contents

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Authors Preface

In 1948, when I first had the good fortune to see one of the then very rare copies of Marxs Rough Draft, it was clear from the outset that this was a work which was of fundamental importance for marxist theory. However, its unusual form and to some extent obscure manner of expression made it far from suitable for reaching a wide circle of readers. I therefore decided, first, to provide a commentary on the work and, second, to make a scientific evalution of some of the new findings which it contained. The first exercise (mainly covered by Parts II-VI) necessitated an exposition of the Rough Drafts most important arguments, as far as possible in Marxs own words. The second required detailed discussions of particular aspects, which are to be found in the first, introductory, and seventh, concluding, parts of this work.

Completion of the work presented a number of difficulties. Inhabiting a city whose libraries contained only very few German, Russian or French socialist works (let alone such indispensable periodicals as Kautskys Neue Zeit) I was restricted to the few books in my own possession, and often doubted the practicability of the venture. But this was not the only problem. The more the work advanced, the clearer it became that I would only be able to touch upon the most important and theoretically interesting problem presented by the Rough Draft that of the relation of Marxs work to Hegel, in particular to the Logic and would not be able to deal with it in any greater depth.

Of all the problems in Marxs economic theory the most neglected has been that of his method, both in general and, specifically, in its relation to Hegel. Recent works contain for the most part platitudes which, to echo Marxs own words, betray the authors own crude obsession with the material and total indifference to Marxs method.

What would one make of a psychologist who was interested only in Freuds results, but rejected the question of the manner in which Freud obtained those results as being irrelevant or even metaphysical? One could only shrug ones shoulders. But this is precisely how most present-day critics of, and experts on, Marx judge his economic system. Either they totally refuse to discuss his dialectical method because they are opposed to metaphysics (such as the adherents of modern theory) this has the advantage of avoiding a real study of this method or the critique is restricted to a few platitudes, better left unsaid. This even applies to such a prominent critic as Joseph Schumpeter.

Schumpeter writes in one of his last works that, although the author of Capital was a neo-Hegelian, it would be a mistake and an injustice to Marxs scientific powers... to make this element the master key to the system. Of course, Marx retained his early love during the whole of his lifetime. He enjoyed certain formal analogies which may be found between his and Hegels argument. He liked to testify to his Hegelianism and to use Hegelian terminology. But this is all. Nowhere did he betray positive science to metaphysics.

What Schumpeter says here is, of course, nothing new. As early as 1922 Lukacs already complained about the bad habit of regarding the dialectic as a superficial stylistic ornament... Even otherwise conscientious scholars like Professor Vorlnder, for example, believed that they could prove that Marx had flirted with Hegelian concepts in only two places and then again in a third place. Yet they failed to notice that a whole series of categories of central importance and in constant use

Next page

1234567...128

Light

Font size:

↓

↑

Georgia Tahoma Arial Verdana

Reset

Interval:

↓

↑

Bookmark:

Make

Similar books «The Making of Marxs Capital»

Look at similar books to The Making of Marxs Capital. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.

Ben Fine

Marxs Capital

Stephen Shapiro

How to Read Marxs Capital

Raya Dunayevskaya

Outline of Marxs Capital Volume 1

Michael Heinrich

How to Read Marxs Capital: Commentary and Explanations on the Beginning Chapters

Marx

Capital

Pilling

Marxs Capital

Harvey

A companion to Marxs Capital Vol. 2 [...]

Fernbach David

Capital 2

Kliman

Reclaiming Marxs Capital: a refutation of the myth of inconsistency

Fine Ben

Marxs Capital

Choonara

A Readers Guide to Marxs Capital

Andrew Kliman

Reclaiming Marxs Capital

Discussion, reviews of the book The Making of Marxs Capital and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.