[Marxism] Preface to the first edition of Capital

[Jim Farmelant]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 22:15:18 +0100 "Ed George" <edgeorge1963 at gmail.com>
writes:
> [With baited breath]
> 
> What you have to bear in mind here is that Marx makes this comment
> while warning the reader of the potential difficulty of his book.
> 
> The 'difficulty' of science that he refers to is not the difficulty 
> of
> investigation (though this too will be difficult for its own 
> reasons)
> but that of exposition. How Marx saw the difference between the two 
> is
> illustrated by his comment in the Afterward to the Second German
> Edition of capital (just before he made his celebrated remark about
> Hegel's dialectic 'standing on its head'):
> 
>

In another forum, I wrote on G.A. Cohen's analysis of
the distinctions that Marx drew between reality and
appearances, and how these distinctions were crucial
for understanding Marx's conception of science.
I wrote:
---------
G.A. Cohen as I recall discussed that issue in an appendix
to his *Karl Marx's Theory of History* titled "Karl Marx and the
Withering Away of Social Science."   Cohen contended that
in Marx's view we construct sciences to understand those aspects
of reality that are more or less opaque to us - that is to understand
those phenomena where there is a disjunction between reality
and appearance.  Marx gave a number of examples of this in the
natural sciences.  Thus air appears to us to be an elementary substance
but chemistry reveals it to be a mixture of distinct gaseous elements
which cannot be detected by our noses.  The sun appears to orbit
the earth but science has revealed that is the earth that is the body
doing the orbiting.  Marx contended that social science especially
political economy had a similar role to play.  That it is the job
of political economy to reveal the essences underlying the appearances.
Thus political economy through such means as the labor theory of
value and the analysis of surplus value would expose the underlying
realities of capitalist relations of production which are visible to us
through the appearances of prices, wages, and profits.  Marx
criticized vulgar economists for failing to penetrate the level
of appearances (as represented by prices, wages, interest,
and profits) to the underlying relations of production which
are based on class exploitation.  Thus he condemned vulgar
economists like Say and Bastiat while commending Smith
and Ricardo on this basis.

Cohen argues that for Marx social science like the state and
the existence of distinct social classes will wither away
under socialism as the rule of blind market forces and
of the anarchy of production is replaced by conscious 
economic planning.  Under communism the schism between
reality and appearance will be healed because social relations
will become transparent.  Thus social science as such will
no longer be necessary for the apprehension of social
reality.  In this respect Marx's view as interpreted by Cohen
had both significant similarities and differences with the
views of Vico.  For Vico society is more intelligible than
nature to man because it is his creation.  However, for
Marx this creation is riddled with mystery such that
special theoretical constructions are required for us
to understand the setting in which people live and
act.  However, under socialism, social relations will
lose their opacity as conscious planning replaces the
rule of blind market forces.

Jim F.