This question <10|10> overall <11|13> Hans: <9|15>.  
  Question 54: Why does Marx's inquiry sometimes reach an impasse which can only be resolved by “considering the matter more closely”?   
  [12] Hans: Excellent example.   I really like BobDog's example in [10]  
  This is much like someone standing inside a building has difficulty understanding what makes the trees sway.   
  I am thinking here of some fictional person who has lived in buildings all her life. She does not know what wind is. She is not even aware that the air which she is immersed in is a form of matter; she thinks it is empty space. Then she looks out of the windows and sees the trees sway. She makes the conclusion: there must be something which is pushing and pulling those trees. She does not see what it is, and she only sees the effects of it, but this is enough to make some intelligent conclusions about the wind. Marx proceeds in the same way. He looks at the surface, the market, and makes inferences from this about what must be going on in the invisible sphere of production. Especially when he sees contradictions on the surface he knows that his field of vision is insufficient; he has to take a look at the underlying layers in order to explain this contradiction.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: