OD UVODA IZ 1857 DO PREDGOVORA IZ 1867: Osvrt na Marksov metod u kritici političke ekonomije

  • Bob Jessop Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci, Fakultet političkih nauka
Ključne reči: starting point||, ||polazna osnova, natural sciences||, ||prirodne nauke, money||, ||novac, method of research||, ||način istraživanja, method of presentation||, ||način predstavlјanja, commodity||, ||roba, cell theory||, ||teorija ćelije, cell form||, ||ćelijski oblik, Capital||, ||Kapital,

Sažetak


U predgovoru izdanju Kapitala iz 1867. godine, Marks je primijetio da je početak istraživanja težak u bilo kojoj nauci. Ovaj tekst otkrio je Marksov i Engelsov stav da postoji samo jedna nauka: istorija, koja obuhvata prirodu i društvo. Potpuno očekivano, prirodne nauke uticale su značajno na njihov rad. U ovom radu bilјeži se uticaj darvinizma, termodinamike i biologije ćelije na Marksove analize, a ovo poslјednje ispituje se detalјno. Kada se Marks odlučio za pojam oblika vrijednosti robe kao osnovu za pisanje Kapitala, on ga je opisao kao ekonomski oblik ćelije kapitalističkog načina proizvodnje, što je odražavalo novi korak u njegovoj kritici političke ekonomije. Razlog za takav stav leži u činjenici što je, za razliku od dva prethodna metoda opisana u Uvodu iz 1857. godine, njegovo naknadno zanimanje za biologiju ćelije nagovijestilo treći metod koji će ih zamijeniti. Roba mu je poslužila kao najjednostavnija, najočiglednija i najneposrednija osnovna jedinica odnosa u kapitalu, te kao presupozicija u analizi i njen mogući ishod kako su se otkrivale sve kontradiktorne i dinamičke implikacije za logiku kapitala. U ovome se odražava njegovo ponovno čitanje Hegelove Nauke logike, koja se takođe bavila pitanjem polazne osnove u istraživanju organskog totaliteta. U tom pogledu, analogija sa ćelijom pokazala se korisnom, pošto smo uočili šest veza između biologije ćelije i Marksove analize kapitalističkog načina proizvodnje. Ali one ostaju samo analogije, pošto nisu usmjeravale niti  njegova klјučna istraživanja niti  njihovo predstavlјanje, što odražava istorijske specifičnosti odnosa u kapitalu. Rad zaklјučujemo nekim opštim zaklјučcima o otkrićima, metodu i načinu predstavlјanja.

 

Reference

Arthur, C. J. (2004). The new dialectic and Marx’s Capital. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Beamish, R. (1992). Marx, method, and the division of labor. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Bechtel, W. (2006). Discovering cell mechanisms: The creation of modern cell biology, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection. London, England: John Murray.

De Paula, J.A., da Gama, H.E.A., Mendes Cunha, A., Suprinyak, C.E., de Deus, L.G., and da Motta e Albuquerque, E. (2012). Notes on a crisis: The Exzerpthefte and Marx’s method of research and composition. Review of Radical Political Economy, 45(2), 162–182.A

Dussel, E. (1990). El ultimo Marx (1863-1882), y la liberacion latinamericana. Mexico DF, Mexico: Siglo XXI.

Engels, F. (1990). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. MECW 26 (pp. 353-398). London, England: Lawrence & Wishart <1886>

Florkin, M. (1960). Naissance et déviation de la théorie cellulaire dans l’œuvre de Th. Schwann. Paris, France: Hermann.

Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s ecology. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, J. B. (2013). Marx and the rift in the universal metabolism of nature. Monthly Review, 65(7), https://monthlyreview.org/2013/12/01/marx-rift-universal-metabolism-nature/

Frobert, L. (2011). Théorie cellulaire, science économique et République dans l’oeuvre de François-Vincent Raspail autour de 1830. Revue d’histoire des sciences, 64(1), 27-58.

Germer, C. M. (2001). The abstract concrete relation in the method of political economy. copejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Germer-The-Abstract-Concrete-Relation-in-the-Method-of-Political-Economy-2001.pdf (last accessed 20.12.2018)

Gregory, F. (1997). Scientific materialism in nineteenth century Germany. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.

Haeckel, E. (1868) Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, Berlin, Prussia: Georg Reimer.

Haeckel, E. (1874). Anthropogenie,1st ed. Leipzig, Saxony: Wilhelm Engelmann.

Haeckel, E. (1877). Anthropogenie, 3rd ed. Leipzig, Saxony: Wilhelm Engelmann.

Hanzel, I. (2014). “The circular course of our representation”: “Schein,” “Grund” and “Erscheinung” in Marx’s economic works. In F. Moseley & T. Smith (Eds.), Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic: A reexamination (pp. 214-39). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Hanzel, I. (2015). Marx's methods of theory construction: Categories, magnitudes, and variations of sizes of magnitudes under certain idealisations. International Critical Thought, 5(4), 413-38.

Harris, H. (1999). The birth of the cell. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1998). Hegel’s Science of Logic, trans. A. V. Miller. Amherst, NY: Humanity Press <1831> [This is the “longer” Logic]

Hegel, G. W. F. (2010). Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences in basic outline. Part I: Science of logic, 2nd ed., trans. K. Brinkmann & D. O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press <1827> [This is the “shorter” Logic]

Jánoska, J., Bondeli, M., Kindle, K., & Hofer, M. (1994). Das “Methodenkapitel” von Karl Marx. Ein historischer und systematischer Kommentar. Basel, Switzerland: Schwabe & Co.

Jessop, B. (1983). Accumulation strategies, state forms, and hegemonic projects. Kapitalistate, 10, 89-111.

Jessop B (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Jessop, B. (2011). Rethinking the diversity and varieties of capitalism: on variegated capitalism in the world market. In G.

Wood & C. Lane (Eds.), Capitalist diversity and diversity within capitalism (pp. 209-37). London, England: Routledge.

Jessop, B. (2018). “Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences”: Marx on the economic cell form of the capitalist mode of production. Consecutio Rerum, 2(2), (in press).

Klein, M. (1981). François-Vincent Raspail. In C. C. Gillispie (Ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography, vol. 11 (pp. 300-302). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Kölliker, A. (1852). Gewebelehre des Menschen für Aerzte und Studierende. Leipzig, Saxony: Wilhelm Engelmann.

McCarthy, G.E. (1988). Marx’ critique of science and positivism: The methodological foundations of political economy. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Maehle, A-H. (2011). Ambiguous cells: The emergence of the stem cell concept in the nineteenth and twentieth Centuries. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 65(4), 359–378.

Marsden, R. (1998). The unknown masterpiece: Marx’s model of capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 22(3), 297-324.

Marsden, R. (1999). The nature of capital: Marx after Foucault. London, England: Routledge.

Marx, K. (1975). Marginal notes on Adolf Wagner’s Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie, MECW, 24, 531-559. <1879-80>

Marx, K. (1983). MEGA2 II.5 Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Erster Band. Hamburg 1867. Berlin, Germany: Dietz Verlag.

Marx, K. (1986a). Introduction. MECW, 28, 17-48.

Marx, K. (1986b). Outlines of the critique of political economy (Rough draft of 1857-58) [First Instalment], MECW, 28, 49-537.

Marx, K. (1987a). Contribution to the critique of political economy, MECW, 29, 266-417. <1859>

Marx, K. (1987b). Outlines of the critique of political economy (Rough draft of 1857-58) [Second Instalment], MECW, 29, 1-255. <1857-58>

Marx, K. (1987c). From the preparatory materials, MECW, 29, 420-532.

Marx, K. (1989a). Chapter 6. Results of the direct production process. MECW, 34, 354-466. <1864>

Marx, K. (1989b). Economic manuscript of 1861-63 [Continuation], MECW 32,

Marx K. (1996). Capital, volume 1. MECW, 35. <1883>

Marx, K. (1998). Capital, volume 3. MECW, 37. <1895>

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1975). The German ideology. MECW, 5 (pp. 19-539). <1845-46>

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1988a). Letters 1856—59. MECW, 40.

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1988b). Letters 1868—70. MECW, 43.

Mitchell. I. (1978). Marxism and German scientific materialism. Annals of Science, 36, 379-400.

Moseley, F. (2002). Hostile brothers: Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3 of Capital. In: G.

Reuten & M. Williams (Eds.), The culmination of capital (pp. 65-101). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Moseley, F. & Smith, T. (Eds.) (2014). Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic: A Reexamination. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Pepperell, N. (2011). Disassembling capital. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney.

Postone, M. (1993). Time, labor and social domination: A reinterpretation of Marx’s critical theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rabinbach, A. G. (1990). Transcendental materialism: The primacy of Arbeitskraft (Labor Power). In idem, The human motor: Energy, fatigue, and the rise of modernity (pp. 45-68). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Ramalho-Santos, M. & Willenbring, H. (2007). On the origin of the term “stem cell”. Cell Stem Cell, 1(July), 35-38.

Raspail, F-V. (1833). Nouveau système de chimie organique. Paris, France: Baillière. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k900553/f614.item.r=laboratoire.texteImage

Rosdolsky, R. (1968). Die Enstehungsgeschichte des Marxschen Kapital. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

Saito, K. (2017). Marx’s ecosocialism: Capitalism, nature and the unfinished critique of political economy. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Sayer, D. (1979). Marx’s method. Ideology, science and critique in Capital. Hassocks, England: Harvester Press.

Schwann, T. & Schleyden, M. J. (1847). Microscopical researches into the accordance in the structure and growth of animals and plants. Trans. H. Smith. London, England: Sydenham Society.

Sheasby, W. C. (2004). Karl Marx and the Victorians’ nature: The evolution of a deeper view: Part two: The age of aquaria. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 15(3), 59-77.

Taylor, N. & Bellofiore, R. (2004). Marx’s Capital I, the constitution of capital: General introduction. In R. Bellofiore & N. Taylor (Eds.), The constitution of capital: Essays on Volume I of Marx’s Capital (pp. 1-34). Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.

Virchow, R. (1855). Cellular pathologie. Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin, 1, 1-39.

Virchow, R. (1858). Die Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begründung auf physiologische und pathologische Gewebenlehre. Berlin, Prussia: Georg Reimer.

Virchow, R. (1860). Cellular pathology as based upon physiological and pathological histology (English translation of second German edition). New York: Robert M. De Witt.

Wendling, A.E. (2009). Karl Marx on technology and alienation. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Objavljeno
2019/02/15
Broj časopisa
Rubrika
Originalni naučni članak