Homology between Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital

Ken Kubota

This is clearly incorrect.

The obvious correspondence, for example, between Circulation and Being as well as between Production and Essence, with Circulation/Being as the surface sphere, has been stated by many experts. Also Reichelt mentions this in his 2007 article “Marx’s Critique of Economic Categories: Reflections on the Problem of Validity in the Dialectical Method of Presentation in Capital” (https://doi.org/10.1163/156920607X245823).

The homology has been discovered and explored by Kôzô Uno, and explicitly stated by Thomas T. Sekine:
The Dialectic of Capital: https://doi.org/10.4444/34.1
Table of Contents (new edition): https://brill.com/view/title/19600?format=HC

Sekine's criticism of Chris Arthur's approach can be found in his 2013 book, pp. 163 ff.:
Towards a Critique of Bourgeois Economics: http://doi.org/10.4444/34.20

See also my German 2009 article (to appear soon as English translation):
“Die dialektische Darstellung des allgemeinen Begriffs des Kapitals im Lichte der Philosophie Hegels. Zur logischen Analyse der politischen Ökonomie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Adornos und der Forschungsergebnisse von Rubin, Backhaus, Reichelt, Uno und Sekine”: https://doi.org/10.4444/100.100.de

Kind regards,

Ken Kubota


Ken Kubota

Am 09.07.2020 um 16:31 schrieb Smith, Tony A <tonys@...>:

In my view, then, there is no homology between Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital, no one to one mapping of the categories in the former to the essential determinations of capitalism Marx examined in the latter.  Particular categories from the Logic do illuminate specific discussions in Capital, and Chris's work is consistently brilliant showing this.  But I think that in just about all cases other categories from the Logic can be equally illuminating, and the specific Hegelian category in question can be used to equally illuminate some other part of Capital.  

Join marxistphilosophy@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.