| This question <23|81> overall <53|55> Nena: <953|55>. |
| Question 13: Would it have been possible to start with a “common sense” definition of capitalism, such as, that capitalist production is production for profit? |
| [54] Nena: From my point of view, the reason why Marx intended to start “Capital” by not using the “common sense” of definition of Cpitalism is because that Capitalist, in general, is described by a social form of society, in which capitalist production is the “profits”. |
| Hans: Grammar! What do you mean by that? |
| [54] Nena: It would have been possible that there would be another book of evaluating the course of Capitalism at that time if Marx started his book by a “common sense” definition of capitalism. |
| Hans: This is not clear either, but it seems to be something different. |
| [54] Nena: Since Marx wanted his study of Capitalism be different from all the other approaches. |
| Hans: He just tried to be different? Is that all? |
| [54] Nena: And, he wanted to explore the whole system of Capitalism, including people, society at large, labor, exchange value, productivity (and the likeness of increase or decrease of it), |
| Hans: Likeness: did you mean likelihood? |
| [54] Nena: commodity, social structure of Capitalism at this particular time and he also wanted to discuss whether this process will go on or not, and, in what form the whole society, people's morality and modes of production will continue. So, Marx choose not to discuss the definition of Capitalism first, because of discussing the definition of Capitalism will lead him into the fragmented discussion of Capitalist profitability in some form and without giving a whole clear understanding of the capitalist society itself. |
| Hans: On the one hand you seem to be throwing the most disparate arguments at the question in order to soo if one of them sticks, and on the other you seem to say: Marx is taking a holistic approach, he should not be narrowed down or distracted by some artificial definitions. |
|
|
|||||