Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Yes, Virginia, Predestination Marx Is Not Fake (ANNOYANCES)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Yes, Virginia, Predestination Marx Is Not Fake (ANNOYANCES)
Marx wrote unvermeidlich. That matters much more than Peter Gordon dares to admit. It means one has to read Capital as not just an analysis but as a work in the Judæo-Christian prophetic tradition as well as a work in what Marx and Engels thought of as fully science if you are to read it well. Marx really did see himself as history’s and sociology’s Darwin. And to pretend that he did not is to betray one’s scholarly-intellectual obligation to him…
Share
I must say I do find myself cranky this morning. And so I wonder: am I being unfair here to marxisant Peter Gordon, who seems to have closed off his mind to a lot of what is really going on in the thought of Karl Marx?
Am I? To cut to the chase: No. I really do not think I am.
The Reitter/North new translation of Marx’s Capital <https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190075/capital> vol. I is, as best as I can tell, truly excellent—it made me read it again, cover to cover, with the old Moore-Aveling and Fowkes translations also open on the desk, for fun.
Give a gift subscription
And Peter Gordon <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/peter-e.-gordon/hair-splitting> does do a nice service by drawing attention to it.
But this from Peter Gordon:
Peter Gordon: Hair-Splitting <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/peter-e.-gordon/hair-splitting>: ‘The analogy to natural science is unfortunate… mischie[vious]… implies that human freedom must yield to naturalistic necessity.…. Marx did not use the term [“laws”] in the sense we have in mind when we say that laws govern… biolog[y]… or the… planets…. Marx… knew that the economy was a human creation and therefore susceptible to historical and social change…. In his later years Marx came to appreciate the diversity of human cultures and economic practices…. Whatever commitment he had to discovering necessary or universal laws in the economic sphere yielded to a far more pluralistic acknowledgment of the many paths from past to future.
This shift is evident when we consider the differences between the [1872] French translation of Capital and the [1867] German original…. German… “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”… French… “The most industrially developed country only shows those that follow it on the industrial ladder the image of their own future.”… This seemingly minor amendment has dramatic consequences… leaves history open to alternative routes that do not all climb the same ladder of Western industrialisation…
Share Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality
It is simply gonzo wrong. And so Peter Gordon will henceforth serve as one of my poster children on how not to read big, difficult books.
Read more
View all episodes
Marx wrote unvermeidlich. That matters much more than Peter Gordon dares to admit. It means one has to read Capital as not just an analysis but as a work in the Judæo-Christian prophetic tradition as well as a work in what Marx and Engels thought of as fully science if you are to read it well. Marx really did see himself as history’s and sociology’s Darwin. And to pretend that he did not is to betray one’s scholarly-intellectual obligation to him…
Share
I must say I do find myself cranky this morning. And so I wonder: am I being unfair here to marxisant Peter Gordon, who seems to have closed off his mind to a lot of what is really going on in the thought of Karl Marx?
Am I? To cut to the chase: No. I really do not think I am.
The Reitter/North new translation of Marx’s Capital <https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190075/capital> vol. I is, as best as I can tell, truly excellent—it made me read it again, cover to cover, with the old Moore-Aveling and Fowkes translations also open on the desk, for fun.
Give a gift subscription
And Peter Gordon <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/peter-e.-gordon/hair-splitting> does do a nice service by drawing attention to it.
But this from Peter Gordon:
Peter Gordon: Hair-Splitting <https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/peter-e.-gordon/hair-splitting>: ‘The analogy to natural science is unfortunate… mischie[vious]… implies that human freedom must yield to naturalistic necessity.…. Marx did not use the term [“laws”] in the sense we have in mind when we say that laws govern… biolog[y]… or the… planets…. Marx… knew that the economy was a human creation and therefore susceptible to historical and social change…. In his later years Marx came to appreciate the diversity of human cultures and economic practices…. Whatever commitment he had to discovering necessary or universal laws in the economic sphere yielded to a far more pluralistic acknowledgment of the many paths from past to future.
This shift is evident when we consider the differences between the [1872] French translation of Capital and the [1867] German original…. German… “The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future.”… French… “The most industrially developed country only shows those that follow it on the industrial ladder the image of their own future.”… This seemingly minor amendment has dramatic consequences… leaves history open to alternative routes that do not all climb the same ladder of Western industrialisation…
Share Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality
It is simply gonzo wrong. And so Peter Gordon will henceforth serve as one of my poster children on how not to read big, difficult books.
Read more