Title: Re: [PEN-L:23105] Re: Marx's Capital manuscript
ON 2002.02.23 03:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT [EMAIL PROTECTED] WROTE:
IN A MESSAGE DATED 2/21/2002 3:10:30 PM CENTRAL STANDARD TIME, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WRITES:
I PRESENT SUMMARY OF ARTICLE $B!H(JENGELS$B!G(J EDITION OF THE THIRD VOLUME OF
CAPITAL AND MARX'S ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT$B!I(JBY MICHAEL HEINRICH IN
$B!H(JSCIENCESOCIETY$B!I(J VOL. 60 NO.4(1996-1997;THEGUILFORD PRESS) IN FEAR OF
WARPING, I ATTACH MY ORIGINAL PAPER.
HE POINT OUT THAT IN 1993, MARX'S MANUSCRIPT OF 1864-65, USED BY ENGELS AS
THE BASIS FOR VOLUME? OF CAPITAL, BECAME AVAILABLE AS PART OF NEW MEGA.
AND HE ANALYZES THIS MANUSCRIPT COMPARED WITH FORTH EDITION.
ALTHOUGH ENGELS WROTE$B!I(J I TRIED MY BEST TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE
FIRST DRAFT WHENEVER IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR,$B!I(J THERE ARE LARGE NUMBER OF
TRANSPOSITIONS, ADDITIONS, CONTRACTIONS, AND ALTERATION.
1. IN OVERVIEW OF ENGELS$B!G(J TEXTUAL MODIFICATION, HE SUMMARIZE THE
$B!H(JMODIFICATION$B!I(J INTO 6 POINTS.
A. DESIGN OF TITLES AND HEADINGS
ENGELS TURNED THE TITLE FROM $B!H(J GESTALTUNGEN DES
GESASAMPTPROYESSES (FORMATIONS OF THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE) INTO $B!H(JDER
GESAMPTPROZESS DER KAPITALISTISCHEN PRODUKTION (THE PROCESS OF CAPITALIST
PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE). I THINK PROBABLY THAT MARX WANTED TO DESCRIBE FROM
ESSENCE OF CAPITAL TO APPEARANCE FORM OF CAPITAL, BUT IN ENGELS EDITION,
THIS POINT BECAME OBSCURE.
ENGELS ALSO MADE A DETAILED SEGMENTATION OF THE TEXT. THE ORIGINAL
MANUSCRIPT WAS DIVIDED INTO ONLY SEVEN CHAPTERS WITH FEW OR NO SUBDIVISIONS.
ENGELS TURNED THE SEVEN CHAPTERS INTO SEVEN PARTS WITH 52 CHAPTERS AND A
NUMBER OF SUBPARAGRAPHS. MARX'S TEXT CONSISTS OF 34 HEADINGS (AND FIVE
CONSTRUCTION POINTS WHICH ARE ONLY NUMBERED), WHILE ENGELS$B!G(J EDITION CONTAIN
92 HEADINGS. BY PUTTING THIS MATERIAL TOGETHER INTO CHAPTERS AND
INSERTING HEADINGS, THIS DRAFT CHARACTER IS CONCEALED.
THE READER CAN NO
LONGER TELL AT WHAT POINT IN THE MANUSCRIPT$B!I(J $B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J TURNS INTO$B!H(J INQUIRY$B!I(J THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRESENTATION AND INQUIRY IS OF CENTRAL
IMPORTANCE FOR MARX'S OWN METHODOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING. TO MARX
$B!H(JPRESENTATION$B!I(J DOES NOT JUST MEAN THE MOIRE$B!-(J OR LESS SKILLFUL ASSEMBLY OF
FINAL RESULTS. THE FACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED SHOULD
BE EXPRESSED BY THE CORRECT PRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORIES, BY$B!I(J ADVANCING
FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE CONCRETE.$B!I(J TO MARX, THE SEARCH FOR AN ADEQUATE
PRESENTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS PROCESS OF INQUIRY. BUT THIS
DIFFERENCE IS CONCEALED BY ENGELS. ADDITIONALLY, ENGELS TRIED TO STRENGTHEN
THE COHERENCE OF THE TEXT, SO READERS DO NOT LEARN THAT A LARGE PART OF
MARX$B!G(J MANUSCRIPT IS OPEN AND UNDECIDED.
I FIND YOUR COMMENT ON THE TRANSLATION OF CAPITAL BY ENGELS EXCELLENT AND REMARKABLY GOOD. I HAD DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THE QUESTION AND THE EMPHASIS ON SHAPE OF CAPITALIST PRODUCTION. YOU HAVE CLEARED UP THIS DISTINCTION FOR ME.
READING MARX CAPITAL AS THE SHAPE OF A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION AT A CERTAIN STAGE AND WITHIN CERTAIN QUANTITATIVE BOUNDARIES IS DIFFERENT FROM ACCEPTING SHAPE AS THE FINAL TOTALITY OF PROCESS. I HAVE READ YOUR COMMENT THREE TIMES AND IN ALL HONESTY WILL HAVE TO REREAD THEM 10-15 TIMES AND THEN REREAD MAJOR PORTIONS OF CAPITAL FOR MY OWN CLARITY.
BEFORE NOW I HAVE NEVER REALLY GRASPED THE LOGIC OF DISTINCTION CONCERNING THE CRISIS OF OVERPRODUCTION, - RAISED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE A CONCEPTION THAT THE CRISIS ELEMENT DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN THE LAW OF THE TENDENCY OF THE RATE OF PROFIT TO FALL, BUT RATHER THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES THAT CONSTITUTE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS PRODUCTION PROCESS. MY CONCEPT HAS BEEN THAT OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS DRIVEN TO REVOLUTIONIZE PRODUCTION, IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MANUFACTURING THE SAME OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INTERNAL BARRIER OF THE MARKET AS EXPRESSED IN THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE MASS AT A GIVEN TIME.
I HAVE NO EGO INVESTED IN THIS PROPOSITION, RATHER IT IS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT MAY BE MORE OR LESS ABSURD THAN WHAT MARX MEANT.
I HAVE NEVER ADVANCED TO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OR UNDERSTANDING OF CREDIT AND NOW HAVE INCENTIVE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER AS A DISCIPLINE. I SIMPLY MUST REREAD WHAT YOU HAVE WROTE MANY TIMES OVER AND AM GRATEFUL.
THIS SHALL KEEP ME BUSY AND EXCITED FOR A WHILE. NOW I CAN'T GO TO SLEEP. GREAT ARTICLE.
MELVIN P.
MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
JOHBUSHI,1-20
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI PRE
JAPAN
0568-76-4131
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
THANK YOU READING MY ARTICLE.
But still there remains to decode and analyze manuscript of credit which Marx remained.
Differing from Heinlich(he describe credit theory itself was beyond Marx's plan), we think it is possible credit theory which can go today from Marx's manuscript, and its work will be nearly accomplished. we
