Pseuds really need to stop bringing up "dialectics", "dialectical materialism" or any other philosophy crap when talking about communism or marxism.
Marx: philosophy is religion rendered into thought and hence to be condemned. One has to leave philosophy aside and devote oneself to the study of the actual world, etc. etc. (1) As for the so-called dialectical method. Here are (2) Hegel. (3 & 4) Marx on Hegel. And (5) Marx on his own "method". Marx is very clear here: he does not have a method. A scientific investigation has to "appropriate the material in detail, analyze all forms of development and trace out their inner connections" rather than starting out with a ready made schema and distorting the material to fit it.
Bonus tracks (maxed out images lol):
>One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03e.htm
> Feuerbach’s great achievement is:>(1) The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned;>(2) The establishment of true materialism and of real science, by making the social relationship of “man to man” the basic principle of the theory; https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm>>2261174this is exactly what ive been saying.
Hegel is an enlightenment idealist philosopher like rosseau or kant. Marx already moved beyond him and only pseuds keep hyping him, Hegelianism was just an intellectual fad of the german speaking world in the 19th century
>>2261174>philosophy is religion rendered into thought and hence to be condemned.damn if only he wasn't doing philosophy by saying this
> One has to leave philosophy aside and devote oneself to the study of the actual world, etc.the study of the actual world is a branch of philosophy called materialism
>Marx is very clear here: he does not have a method.Not even a scientific method?
>A scientific investigation has to "appropriate the material in detail, analyze all forms of development and trace out their inner connections" rather than starting out with a ready made schema and distorting the material to fit it.Science is a branch of natural philosophy and materialist philosophy. It just happens to be the most useful branch.
>>2261174Wouldn't Marx without dialectics have no vision of the future?
Be stuck strictly in descriptivist matters; never getting to the prescriptive.
>>2262101measurement (i.e. the act of measuring) begins (i.e. starts historically) with picking a unit (i.e. choosing a "one") which is arbitrary (i.e. could be anything) and socially constructed (i.e. enforced through common adoption)
the act of measuring starts historically with picking a "one" which could be anything and is enforced through common adoption.
when you bring up "Planck's constant" you're not bringing up a unit of measurement that is arrived at right away when humans begin measuring historically, indeed humans must spend thousands of years historically measuring things and performing calculations before arriving at something as precise as Planck's constant.
THEREFORE
>measurement begins with picking a unit which is arbitrary and socially constructed…woah… deep….
cavemen measuring distances by footsteps in the sand, or notches on their bones, or trails of blood left by fleeing prey
Actively harmful thread. Rude sage.
>>2261174Illiterate. Actually do the reading, dumbass. Don't cherry pick.
Bystanders, ignore the OP and actually read for yourselves.
>>2262070Retard.
>>2262024Not wrong, but not deep.
>>2262109Correct.
>>2261174Dialectical should be used as a catch all noun
Like Skibidi or chicken-jockey
this is the early marx.
the later marx returns to hegel and adopts the dialectical method - in reverse:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm>My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.>The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of Das Kapital, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Ἐπίγονοι [Epigones — Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.>>2262290>returns to hegel<paragraph rejects it and goes beyond philosophyreally uygha
<the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.this doesnt even contradict any of the shit in op lol
>>2262306>paragraph rejects [hegel]lets "read", shall we?
<"The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago […] But just as I was working at the first volume of Das Kapital, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Ἐπίγονοι [Epigones — Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel […] as s a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker"you see?
>this doesnt even contradict any of the shit in opOP infers in the first place, that marx rejects dialectics, and says that he has no "method", yet, we read in the first line of my quote,
<"My dialectic method…"doubly disproving your's and OP's claims.
>>2261174On a similar note anyone who refers to dialectics of nature positively is a moron. Engels utterly fails in his goal, from the little fragmentary notes he made and his goal isn't even to "apply dialectics" to nature, it is to show that the dialectic is proven or observed by nature. The only thing it would even make sense to apply to, would be the sections where he's talking about science being subjected to ideology.
Engels can't even find his laws consistently either, where can one find the negation of the negation in nature? His example of crystallization is stupid. And arguing that because the universe is in constant flux is a non-statement.
>>2262290>>2262316And you need to know anything about dialectics or philosophy to understand this? I can't tell if you're serious or joking. You literally don't need to know anything apart from some things like the currency or technical terms for tools. You get more confused coming to it thinking you need to know philosophy. Do you think Marx was stupid or expected the average reader to know fucking Hegel?
I hate this attitude where people have to over complicate Capital and all the other critique of political economy Marx did. And by people who can't even reproduce the meme relationship between Marx and Hegel lol.
Leftypol needs to just read the fucking books.
If you want to learn about dialectics then read Hegel. If you want to learn about capital then read Marx. >>2263576>And you need to know anything about dialectics or philosophy to understand this?To understand what? To really understand Marx's project yes you absolutely do.
>>2263576>expected the average reader to know fucking HegelPeople reading Capital? Yes. For the manifesto? Not so much. It depends on what you are reading and what for. If you are just reading for your own amusement or to understand some things here and there from a new perspective its not critical, but if you are trying to run a party or be an organization leader then its extremely important to actually understand the method so you can apply it to changing conditions instead of trying to dogmatically adhere to some kind of list separated from its historical context which a perfect example of the undialetical opinions we get here constantly. You actually do need to have a dialectical understanding of the world to arrive at correct conclusions.
>>2263644It was a fucking footnote in a private notebook and he didn't explain why, Lenin was just being pretentious like he always was, I don't get why this lawyer guy was so insecure and always had to shit on everyone else and tried to prove he was the smartest guy in the room or something, even in his private notebooks. He is honestly insufferable, at least Marx's banter was funny.
Understanding the dialectical mode of thinking is useful but honestly overhyped if you aren't interested in philosophy. Keep in mind it was originally invented by Socrates, not Hegel.
Read the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital (pay special attention to the Russian critic Marx is praising), and then the Hegel's Dialectics article of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you want to get it while not diving into too many dense primary sources.
>>2263667very hegelian; your mistake was your success.
>>2263663<SOCRATES: "That’s just how it is, Phaedrus. But it is much nobler to be serious about these matters, and use the art of dialectic. The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it as happy as any human being can be [phaedrus]"dialectic is related to the art of rhetoric:
<"SOCRATES: And what would you call someone who knows how to ask and answer questions? Wouldn’t you call him a dialectician? [cratylus]"this is also aristotle's understanding, which is why he sees it as a lower form of reasoning to that of logic, since rheoric typically employs pathos against logos.
hegel returns to dialectic by employing negativity, which backgrounds all formal relations. it is hegel's insistence on "contradiction" which grounds reason, since reason only negates.
>>2263663>>2263673here is what aristotle comments about dialectics in "prior analytics":
<"A demonstrative proposition differs from a dialectical one, because a demonstrative proposition is the assumption of one of two contradictory statements (the demonstrator does not ask for his premiss, but lays it down), whereas a dialectical proposition choice between two contradictories."in "topics" he speaks of demonstrative and dialectical deduction in reasoning:
<"It is a demonstration, when the premisses from which the deduction starts are true and primitive, or are such that our knowledge of them has originally come through premisses which are primitive and true; and it is a dialectical deduction, if it reasons from reputable opinions."so we see the rhetorical nature of its reasoning, which opposes formal logic, by sustaining a contradiction of propositions.
here is hegel's statement on the matter:
<"The proposition should express what the True is; but essentially the True is Subject. As such it is merely the dialectical movement, this course that generates itself, going forth from, and returning to, itself. [phenomenology §65]"to hegel, the True is the whole (Notion), such that substance is subject. the primary proposition in demonstration is identity, however, which hegel remarks upon in "science of logic";
<"Thus the essential category of identity is enunciated in the proposition: everything is identical with itself, A = A. Or negatively: A cannot at the same time be A and not A. […] This proposition in its positive expression A = A is, in the first instance, nothing more than the expression of an empty tautology […] The other expression of the law of identity: A cannot at the same time be A and not-A, has a negative form; it is called the law of contradiction […] In this proposition, therefore, identity is expressed-as negation of the negation [essence § 863-882]"the dialectic of the proposition "returning to itself" comes from hegel's judgement of identity being a "synthetic" proposition:
<"From this it is evident that the law of identity itself, and still more the law of contradiction, is not merely of analytic but of synthetic nature [§883]"thus, for a proposition to be demonstrated to hegel, it must be "grounded" by a dialectical movement of internal negativity, or contradiction.
>>2263688>that's not an argumentExcept it is.
>The patronizing and errant lecturing of our so-called intellectuals seems to me a far greater impediment. We are still in need of technicians, agronomists, engineers, chemists, architects, etc., it is true, but if the worst comes to the worst we can always buy them just as well as the capitalists buy them, and if a severe example is made of a few of the traders among them — for traders there are sure to be — they will find it to their own advantage to deal fairly with us. But apart from the specialists, among whom I also include schoolteachers, we can get along perfectly well without the other “intellectuals.” The present influx of literati and students into the party, for example, may be quite damaging if these gentlemen are not properly kept in check. >The biggest obstacles are the small peasants and the importunate super-clever intellectuals who always think they know everything so much the better, the less they understand it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm >>2263635>>2263644Marx:
>presentation, not inquiry>studying the thing itself so it *appears* a priori but isn'tRed book bottom tier philosopher retard online:
<dialectics … core method of inquiry<aha so that makes everything dialecticalReligious level schizoids.
>>2263656Fucking based.
>>2264426Lenin doesn't really bother me, he is dead and was a product of his time, it's his 21th century followers that bother me.
>because he was setting a party line, there is no room for "I think …" or "maybe …", when you actually do stuff things are either correct or incorrectYou just parrot the same shit he said 110 years ago about Hegel in a private notebook nobody read before he died, implying you can't understand Capital if you didn't read The Science of Logic first. It is simply false, if anything, reading Capital first and paying special attention to the first chapter, might help you get a better grasp of the Hegelian method.
Lenin read Capital in Russian several times before reading the Science of Logic in German.
Again, the Afterworld to the Second German Edition:
>My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
>The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ‘Epigonoi who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” >I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.Lenin had to make decisions just like many other activists had to make decisions, sure. We still don't live in communism, so I wouldn't be so kooky about it.
Btw, reading Feuerbach and Stirner is also good to understand the historical context of German intellectual life after the death of Hegel (i.e. why Marx ended up thinking what he thought).
>>2264588>He was probably excited by the new insights in revisiting the text after reading Hegel.I can understand this, of course, but I don't understand the need to repeat this ad nauseam even though there is literally 0 explanation of why it's important to read the Science of Logic in this quote. It's always
>Lenin said it 😲😲😲wow.
>>2264625lmfaooo people who unironically think that a knowledge of 'dialectics' helps you master the world of subjects are just religious fanatics under a different name. a 'dialectic' that determines everything? yeah man thats just god rofl
marx didnt intend for capital to be a puzzle and nobody her cant show me a single respectable scientist who needed 'dialectics' for their field of inquiry
all this gibberish tells us nothing and is unrelated to communism in any practical way. fucking embarrassing thread
>>2264649>strawmanilliterate retard
<The vanguard needs a solid understanding of dialectics<Throwing it out or declaring serious study to be "pseud" isn't just revisionist but counter-revolutionary wrecking.maybe people who think ‘dialectics’ is some abstract method you can just pick up and apply to anything should actually read hegel :)
>>2263635>To really understand Marx's project yes you absolutely do. this whole retarded thread is total bunk. insofar as it actually has a content, it is just describing proper scientific inquiry, ie appropriation and working up of the subject matter itself
no special knowledge of an abstract ‘dialectics’ is required for this shit lmfao
>>2261695>Science is a branch of natural philosophy and materialist philosophy. It just happens to be the most useful branch.lol
'dialectical materialism' and philosophy in general abstract from everything concrete to arrive at supposedly universal principles, the complete opposite of science
>>2264660>a 'dialectic' that determines everythingDialectics aren't determinism or fatalism.
It's a mode of thinking emphasizing change. If you conceive the world "dialectically", there are no eternal "iron laws" or very barely when it comes to human affairs, both in Hegel and Marx AFAIK, it's an evolution of society, science, knowledge, religion, social mores, etc. that unfold endlessly, because the conclusion of some event is already the precondition of a new event that will change what was achieved in the past.
Stirner made fun of this and said there was a black PoC stage of history, then a Mongolian stage, then a cumskin stage. Already in Stirner's satire of Hegelian dialectics, you can see that there are no immutable eternal laws of civilization for example (except regarding the self, the ego perhaps), society changes according to history and various influences.
It's cool to get that kind of stuff, it gives you tools to think about the world, and what might happen next, but that's basically it.
>>2264766>ultras, luxemborgists, trots, analytical and humanist revisionists who propose to separate marx's analysis from his politics neutralizing him to make compatible with capitalismfirstly, not one of those groups actually want this, secondly the point of stating this is to show that marx's methods are sound but that they must be adapted to the modern condition and by extension the understanding that comes with that, a lot of what marx and engels believed has either become inapplicable to the modern world or has been changed by changes in the understanding of history, you cannot simply go that "everything he said was basically right" when that would also mean accepting the reactionary and chauvinist positions as well, and in your other post where you say >sn't the point of arguing marx and dialectics are separate things to say that stalin and mao were wrong?
is also part of a non sequitur, as likewise few people do it for that reason (and instead do it to show that things change), what's also wrong is that the "ultras" you talk about are actually turbomarxists, bordiga believed in an invariance of marxism, that is to say there is no variance of marxism and that to say otherwise is revisionist, it is also indisputable that mao and stalin were revisionists even by the standards people like you lay out
>>2264814Dialectics aren't something you can apply. They're immanent in the content you are investigating. After the investigation is over, you can then present it in a dialectical form.
>>2264816Cockshott is a stupid grifter intellectual too.
>the term was coined by engelsSomebody already talked about how retarded Engels' dialectics of nature was.
>and popularized by stalinLmao.
>>2264780>a lot of what marx and engels believed has either become inapplicable to the modern worldright that is talking about isolated static facts separated from context(undialectical), not the dialectical method
>has been changed by changes in the understanding of historythats dialectics
>you cannot simply go that "everything he said was basically right" when that would also mean accepting the reactionary and chauvinist positionsnot what people are saying, the method is correct, the particular positions are limited by the information available to the individual
>few people do it for that reason>not one of those groups actually want thisintentions dont matter consequences and outcomes do
>>2264824no u.
if you want to contribute say what you think it is instead of empty claims
>>2264826Hegel: things must be studied in their essential natures and dialectics is immanent in the results of a correct investigation.
Marx: Lassalle is stupid for trying to force his content into a ready made system of logical categories.
Retards today: lol just apply dialectics and you'll end up with the right answer bro!
>>2264828When did everyone on leftypol become such a touchy pussy lmao?
>>2264832stalinists say the darnedest things
maybe one day you will learn what immanent means, or at least actually read some marx
>>2263649This is the one.
>>2264824This is not correct.
"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."(Captial ).
>>2264860Your screenshot doesn't disprove my point at all.
Marx explicitly stating how he came to his findings isn't quote mining. Marx accepted the dialectical method of thought but rejected idealism.
>“The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.”
>Marx is very clear here: he does not have a methodThis is false.While Marx rejects formal schemas or rigid frameworks imposed externally on reality (as was done by vulgar economists and idealist systems), he very much insists on a method—a dialectical materialist method—in Capital and elsewhere.
>"In its rational form, dialectic is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state… Because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature"
>“Rather than starting with a ready-made schema…”This point is true and crucial. Marx did not impose dialectics from the outside. That is exactly what differentiates dialectical materialism from idealism or vulgar materialism. Instead, he investigated the actual development of capitalism, discovered its contradictions, and used dialectical logic to trace their motion and development.
>>2263644yes. marx's understanding is clearly inspired from hegel's logic. we have in the first instance, being:
<quality-quantity-measurewhich relates to value and its form
we also have hegel's logic of nature:
<essence-appearance-actualitythis is given in relations of production and exchange
only ignorant people are capable of denying this
>>2264608youre right. people point to hegel without actually elaborating on it. hopefully i can provide context, as i have already attempted to do:
>>2263699>>2264660marx does actually think of economic value as an unsolved mystery, as he writes;
<"The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all [capital vol. 1, 1867]">>2264682change is always leading back to the same place however, like all natural cycles. thats why a "revolution" is about circling back, so as to sublate. even heraclitus saw that the only stasis of flux is flux itself, revealing the formality of the Logos.
>>2264796actually, marx and engels did make (false) predictions, as we can read:
<"The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future […] In England the process of social disintegration is palpable. When it has reached a certain point, it must react on the Continent [capital vol. 1, 1867 preface]"this is marx's determinism. we also read engels,
<"Free Trade has exhausted its resources [.] Foreign industry, rapidly developing, stares English production in the face everywhere […] The decennial cycle of stagnation, prosperity, over-production and crisis, ever recurrent from 1825 to 1867, seems indeed to have run its course [.] The sighed for period of prosperity will not come […] while the number of the unemployed keeps swelling from year to year, there is nobody to answer that question; and we can almost calculate the moment when the unemployed losing patience will take their own fate into their own hands [capital vol. 1, 1886 preface]"revolution never came from capitalist nations, but from russia and china instead.
>>2264885yes, marx says he uses hegel in his theory of value:
<"I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker [hegel], and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him [capital vol. 1, 1873 afterword]"the form of value [exchange value] itself is also a relationship between contraries which bring mutual recognition, between substance and magnitude, or quality and quantity, whereby there is measure.
>>2264860lets read where marx spoke of his method;
<"M. Block [.] makes the discovery that my method is analytic […] german reviews [.] finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical […] I discuss the materialistic basis of my method […] Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method [.] what else is he picturing but the dialectic method? […] My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite […] With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought […] The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion […] But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital" [.] I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker […] With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell [capital vol. 1, 1873 afterword]" >>2264914>changethe more things change, the more they stay the same. you cant have flux without stasis, hence it is heraclitus who theorises the Logos. aristotle says that plato is inspired by heraclitus, as we may read in one of plato's masterpieces, "timaeus";
<"Now it was the Living Thing’s nature to be eternal, but it isn’t possible to bestow eternity fully upon anything that is begotten. And so he began to think of making a moving image of eternity: at the same time as he brought order to the universe, he would make an eternal image, moving according to number, of eternity remaining in unity. This number, of course, is what we now call time [timaeus]"this is a direct communication of "the one and the many" as it concerns being. if my cells die, i am preserved in my formality. change then, is a flux that is contained within a larger, static system, like how all games have creativity based on the limits of rules.
>law of valuemarx regards value as the metaphysical basis of commodity exchange; so an eternal law of this type of social labour. thats why he imagines it operating throughout history, even without our knowledge of it.
>>2265237"metaphysics" is a scary word, but it just refers to first principles.
>>2265230>Are you saying law of value wont be abolished cant be abolished?read again:
<marx regards value as the metaphysical basis of commodity exchangeabolish commodity exchange and you abolish value. this is also why value must be understood as a market construct rather than a natural category.
>>2265233yes. aristotle, for example, perceives an equality in commodity exchange, but cannot identify a common substance, which to marx, is human labour (value);
<"the great thinker who was the first to analyse [.] the form of value. I mean Aristotle […] What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? […] human labour. The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice. […] The brilliancy of Aristotle’s genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality [capital vol. 1, ch. 1]" >>2265244well, labour was not considered equal in aristotle's time (due to slavery). that is part of marx's point. even when it wasnt considered equal, it still gained an abstract equality as value in exchange. marx speaks a bit later on about this;
<"whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it. Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic [capital vol. 1, ch. 1, sec. 4]"value has these intrinsic properties to marx.
>>2265249yes, precisely. that is marx's positon.
there is "something" equal between things,
which to marx, is "human labour in the abstract".
aristotle also perceives an equality, but cannot say what it is. marx tries to fill in the gap.
Unique IPs: 42