Marx and dialectic

[Young Master Smeet]

Then why did Marx say

Marx wrote:

"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."

In the same, short, afterword.  It's a curious thing to do, don' t you think.  I mean,t he passage is one ext, shouldn't it be interpreted as a whole?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"In the same, short, afterword.  It's a curious thing to do, don't you think. I mean, the passage is one ext[tract?], shouldn't it be interpreted as a whole?"Indeed, it should be interpreted as part of that 'whole', and part of that 'whole' is the summary of 'the dialectic method' which contains no Hegel at all.And it is "curious" you keep ignoring it.Why did Marx add the contentious passage about which you keep preseverating? As that Postface points out, Marx was keen to distance himself from Hegel:"M. Block — 'Les Théoriciens du Socialisme en Allemagne. Extrait du Journal des Economistes, Juillet et Août 1872' — makes the discovery that my method is analytic and says: 'Par cet ouvrage M. Marx se classe parmi les esprits analytiques les plus eminents.' German reviews, of course, shriek out at 'Hegelian sophistics.' The European Messenger of St. Petersburg in an article dealing exclusively with the method of 'Das Kapital' (May number, 1872, pp. 427-436), finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical. It says:'At first sight, if the judgment is based on the external form of the presentation of the subject, Marx is the most ideal of ideal philosophers, always in the German, i.e., the bad sense of the word. But in point of fact he is infinitely more realistic than all his forerunners in the work of economic criticism. He can in no sense be called an idealist.'"I cannot answer the writer better than by aid of a few extracts from his own criticism, which may interest some of my readers to whom the Russian original is inaccessible."After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on…" [Bold added.]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmIt is at that point that Marx adds the summary of 'the dialectic method' — in the very next paragraph.That is the context of the summary: to repudiate accusations that 'the dialectic method' was in any way Hegelian. He sums up by calling it "the dialectic method" even though it contains no Hegel at all, and because it contains no Hegel at all. He was throwing this passge back in the face of that reviewer, using his own words against him.Which is why I interpret the contentious passage (you keep returning to) in the way I have.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Moderator 1: apologies. I will not mention the topic of your warning ever again in this thread.

---

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS (and we take yet another spin across the flatlands of irrelevance):"The summary of the dialectic is within the same text, and so what we are looking at here is how to interpret the text as a whole, and this sentence is within it."Let's take Bob the baker.  Let us suppose that a long passage about putting bread on the table preceded, with no word about Bob within that long paragraph.  Let us further suppose the author includes mentions about their method of putting bread on the table, and how they do it in the completely opposite way to Bob, and then says:"'The pulverising which flour suffers in Bob’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to put bread on the table'."Let's suppose we find a text by the master baker that implies that Bob isn't a baker after all — and the bread is really flavoured plastic.Any more fiction for me to bat out of the park with my own fiction?[With fiction, one can invent anything one likes. Give us your best shot…]Not so with Marx's own declaration concerning what he meant by 'the dialectic method' — can't make that up — which summary you still seem to want to ignore.Odd that…

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

"I cannot answer the writer better than by aid of a few extracts from his own criticism, which may interest some of my readers to whom the Russian original is inaccessible."After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on…" [Bold added.]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmIt is at that point that Marx adds the summary of 'the dialectic method' — in the very next paragraph.

---

Marx' next paragraph is:

Marx wrote:

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?

Which is a continuation of correcting the misapprehensions of the Russian writer as to his method.  Where Marx does describe his dialectic is a subsequent paragraph

Marx wrote:

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.

He then procedes to the famous line:

Quote:

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.

You'd have to do serious violence to the text to rid it of any meaning that there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"Which is a continuation of correcting the misapprehensions of the Russian writer as to his method.  Where Marx does describe his dialectic is a subsequent paragraph."1) Marx doesn't correct this reviewer, in fact he says the following about his review:"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Bold added.]So, Marx is entirely positive about it.Perhaps you know somewhere where Marx repudiated this review as an accurate expression of his "method"? If so, don't be shy, let's see it.2) Marx described this review as an expression of "the dialectic method", even though it contained absolutely no trace of Hegel, or even 'German dialectics'.So, the following is the opposite of the truth:"there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic."If there is a 'germ of truth' in Hegel's 'dialectic', why did Marx quote a summary that completely banished Hegel from 'the dialectic method', and then call it, by implication, 'my method'?But what about this?"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."We covered this in detail back in 2013. Why are we going over it yet again?[Well, we both know the answer to that one: you have a bad case of selective blindness — you ignore a clear statement by Marx about his 'method' and 'the dialectic method', and focus on other passages that fail to tell us anything about 'the dialectic method'. That seems fair.]Once more (quoted from an earlier post of mine):"we…have a summary published and endorsed by Marx that contains no trace of Hegel whatsoever, which he nevertheless calls "the dialectic method". That salient fact alters the interpretation of anything Marx subsequently says about "the dialectic method", or even about Hegel's alleged invention of certain forms of it." [Bold added.]In view of that, it is quite clear that to put Hegel the right way up is to show how empty his head is. The rational kernel — summarised for us in the passage Marx quoted from that reviewer, which is a Hegel-free zone — contains no Hegel at all.How do we know?Well, Marx told us when he described a summary that had absolutely no Hegel in it: "the dialectic method".[We can go over this as many times as it takes until it sinks in, if you like.]Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it.Oh wait!There isn't one!Now, you can't quote a single text written by Marx, published in or after 1873, that tells us that Hegel had any input in his 'method' or in 'the dialectic method'.Whereas, there is one that supports my interpretation.Get over it.

---

[Young Master Smeet]

The context is Marx correcting the misappreenhsions about his work:

Marx wrote:

That the method employed in “Das Kapital” has been little understood, is shown by the various conceptions, contradictory one to another, that have been formed of it.

Marx wrote:

The European Messenger of St. Petersburg in an article dealing exclusively with the method of “Das Kapital” (May number, 1872, pp. 427-436), finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical.

Marx wrote:

I cannot answer the writer better than by aid of a few extracts from his own criticism

Marx wrote:

Whilst the writer pictures what *he takes* to be actually my method

The writer in St. Petersberg, generously, has misunderstood Marx, and rather than the severe realism described, Marx has actually used a dialectical method. (note the whilst).The absence of Hegel from a passage written by someone else is not a strong indicator of Marx's views of the matter, the fact that he glossed the quotation of someone else's opinions with a discussion of Hegel's rational Kernel suggests he is at least adding to that someone else's idea, that quote by another writer, that was not Marx's own opinion, that he didn't write, that originated from someone else, another person's idea, writing about Marx, not Hegel.That gloss, using human wrds, which ascribes to Hegel the privilige of being the first, not to originate the dialectic, but "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" albeit wrongly, in a mystified form that contains a rational kernel.It's hardly a sensible method to ascribe more meaning to a paragraph simply because it comes first within a text, especially a developing argument.I really cannot remember what we discussed in 2013.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"I really cannot remember what we discussed in 2013."I posted a link earlier, but here it is again (I join in on page 4):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/do-we-need-dialectic?page=3YMS (and so we take another spin across the flatlands of selective blindness — you should have gone to Specsavers):"The writer in St. Petersberg, generously, has misunderstood Marx, and rather than the severe realism described, Marx has actually used a dialectical method. (note the whilst)."Indeed, I pointed this out several posts ago (with all due respect, you really must at least try to pay attention!); here it is again:"M. Block — 'Les Théoriciens du Socialisme en Allemagne. Extrait du Journal des Economistes, Juillet et Août 1872' — makes the discovery that my method is analytic and says: 'Par cet ouvrage M. Marx se classe parmi les esprits analytiques les plus eminents.' German reviews, of course, shriek out at 'Hegelian sophistics.' The European Messenger of St. Petersburg in an article dealing exclusively with the method of 'Das Kapital' (May number, 1872, pp. 427-436), finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method of presentation, unfortunately, German-dialectical."Marx points out that the mistake this reviewer had made was to conclude that Marx's method was "Hegelian" and "German-dialectical".So, what did Marx do to correct him? Again, from earlier:"It is at that point that Marx adds the summary of 'the dialectic method' — in the very next paragraph."That is the context of the summary: to repudiate accusations that 'the dialectic method' was in any way Hegelian. He sums up by calling it 'the dialectic method' even though it contains no Hegel at all, and because it contains no Hegel at all. He was throwing this passage back in the face of that reviewer, using his own words against him."Which is why I interpret the contentious passage (you keep returning to) in the way I have."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37656The only question is, why do you keep ignoring this summary and its significance?"The absence of Hegel from a passage written by someone else is not a strong indicator of Marx's views of the matter, the fact that he glossed the quotation of someone else's opinions with a discussion of Hegel's rational Kernel suggests he is at least adding to that someone else's idea, that quote by another writer, that was not Marx's own opinion, that he didn't write, that originated from someone else, another person's idea, writing about Marx, not Hegel."That would have been a good point had Marx not called that summary "the dialectic method". Since he did, it isn't."That gloss, using human words, which ascribes to Hegel the privilege of being the first, not to originate the dialectic, but "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" albeit wrongly, in a mystified form that contains a rational kernel."Answered many, many times; move on."It's hardly a sensible method to ascribe more meaning to a paragraph simply because it comes first within a text, especially a developing argument."It is even less sensible ignoring Marx's own description of that summary as "the dialectic method", despite the fact that it contained no trace of Hegel whatsoever.See you again soon, where I have no doubt that I will have to make the very same points, yet again.Ok, as many as it takes…

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

YMS wrote:

"The absence of Hegel from a passage written by someone else is not a strong indicator of Marx's views of the matter, the fact that he glossed the quotation of someone else's opinions with a discussion of Hegel's rational Kernel suggests he is at least adding to that someone else's idea, that quote by another writer, that was not Marx's own opinion, that he didn't write, that originated from someone else, another person's idea, writing about Marx, not Hegel."

That would have been a good point had Marx not called that summary "the dialectic method". Since he did, it isn't.

Ah, but this is the key, describing someone else's description of the the dialectic as such does not necessarily imply that he considered this the definitive definition (if he did, why didn't he say that? A good hermeneutic method is to consider how else a text could be structured or phrased).  He says the St. Petersberg reviewer  was describing the dialectic, and then goes on to gloss how Hegel was the "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. " from whose work one may "discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell" but who had mystified the dialectic.We're back to the co-operative principle: why say these things, if they add no meaning to the preceeding paragraph.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

It is even less sensible ignoring Marx's own description of that summary as "the dialectic method", despite the fact that it contained no trace of Hegel whatsoever.See you again soon, where I have no doubt that I will have to make the very same points, yet again.Ok, as many as it takes…

But I don't ignore that paragraph, the absence of Hegel from someone else's description of the dialectic does not imply neccessarily that Marx considered he needed to be absent.  That Marx then introduces Hegel suggests that he felt Hegel needed to be added.  That Marx considered the dialectic existed pre-and-sapearate from Hegel's writings does not mean that he did not ascribe to him the position of being the first to generally and consciously describe it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS (and yes, I was right, I do have to make the very same points again):"Ah, but this is the key, describing someone else's description of the dialectic as such does not necessarily imply that he considered this the definitive definition (if he did, why didn't he say that: a good hermeneutic method is to consider how else a text could be structured or phrased): he says the St. Petersberg reviewer  was describing the dialectic, and then goes on to gloss how Hegel was the "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. " from whose work one may "discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell" but who had mystified the dialectic."But, this is the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx ever published and endorsed, so, unless you can find another passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, it stands as a definitive statement of what he called 'my method'.And, yes we could speculate, and come up with any number of wild and wonderful interpretations, but all will fall foul of that summary, and Marx's description of it as 'my method' and 'the dialectic method' if they try to reintroduce Hegel.In order to justify any such move you would have to locate that missing passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, that tells us Hegel was still an influence on his 'method'. Since you haven't managed to find it (I suspect you haven't even looked for it!), it isn't."But I don't ignore that paragraph, the absence of Hegel from someone else's description of the dialectic does not imply necessarily that Marx considered he needed to be absent, that Marx then introduces Hegel suggests that he felt Hegel needed to be added.  That Marx considered the dialectic existed pre-and-separate from Hegel's writings does not mean that he did not ascribe to him the position of being the first to generally and consciously describe it." [Typos corrected.]Well, you do ignore it (and its significance), since you keep forgetting what Marx called it.What was that, again?Oh yes: he called it 'the dialectic method', even though Hegel can't be found in it anywhere.See you again soon, where I have no doubt that I will have to make the very same points, yet again.Ok, as many as it takes…

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

But, this is the only summary of 'the dialectic method' Marx ever published and endorsed, so, unless you can find another passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, it stands as a definitive statement of what he called 'my method'.

Indeed.  And?  There is nothing in that passage that excludes the notion that Hegel was first to generally and consciously describe that dialectic.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

In order to justify any such move you would have to locate that missing passage, written and published by Marx, contemporaneous with or subsequent to the Postface, that tells us Hegel was still an influence on his 'method'. Since you haven't managed to find it (I suspect you haven't even looked for it!), it isn't.

Not only have I not looked for it, I have no intention of looking for it, nor any need: since my argument does not rely upon any such fanciful document, but upon the words Marx put on the page.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, you do ignore it (and its significance), since you keep forgetting what Marx called it.What was that, again?Oh yes: he called it 'the dialectic method', even though Hegel can't be found in it anywhere.

But that doesn't mean anything, especially as he adds Hegel immediately afterwards, he adds Hegel to someone else's summary.  I could write a definiive description of the Labour Theory of Value without once mentioning Marx, what would that prove?  What we can say is Marx acknowledges he uses the dialectic, that Hegel's method is not his, that Hegel distorted the dialectic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"But that doesn't mean anything."Let me get this straight: a summary that contains no trace of Hegel or his ideas, but which Marx nevertheless calls 'the dialectic method', and which was added to the Postface to prove to the reviewer that his 'method' owed nothing to Hegel and wasn't "German-dialectical" "doesn't mean anything"?So, I was right, you are determined to ignore this summary and its significance.But, you have an answer:"I could write a definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value without once mentioning Marx, what would that prove?"That of course misses the point — my argument isn't, and has never been, that Marx doesn't "mention Hegel", but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary.Here is how I put this in two of my first posts in this thread (one of which was in reply to you!):"In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found (upside down or 'the right way up') — no "contradictions", no change of 'quantity into quality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unity and identity of opposites' no 'interconnected Totality', no 'universal change' –, and yet Marx still calls this the 'dialectic method"' and says of it that it is 'my method'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy#comment-37562"In that summary, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found, upside down or 'the right way up', and yet Marx still calls this 'the dialectic method' (note, not part of, or one aspect of, 'the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and 'my method'. So, Marx's 'method' is a Hegel-free zone ('upside down or the right way up')." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=2#comment-37586Now, I challenge you to write a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" and fail to mention, for example, surplus value, abstract labour, the equivalent and the relative form of value, use value, exchange value, the falling rate of profit, variable/constant capital (or their equivalents and/or synonyms), etc., etc. Until you do, the above claim of yours can only be viewed as grandstanding. YMS:"especially as he adds Hegel immediately afterwards, he adds Hegel to someone else's summary."I'm sorry, where does Marx add "Hegel to someone else's summary"?And sure, he 'mentions' Hegel several times, but we have been over these 'mentions' many times.YMS:"What we can say is Marx acknowledges he uses the dialectic, that Hegel's method is not his, that Hegel distorted the dialectic."In fact, according to that summary, which not only fails to mention Hegel, it contains not one single concept drawn from, or which is unique to, Hegel's work, we can say more: Marx's dialectic owes absolutely nothing to Hegel (except for a few items of jargon with which he merely 'coquetted', and only 'here and there' — which is hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?).YMS:"Not only have I not looked for it, I have no intention of looking for it, nor any need: since my argument does not rely upon any such fanciful document, but upon the words Marx put on the page."1) And yet you serially ignore (or downplay) the summary Marx added to the Postface, which contains not one atom drawn from Hegel's work (i.e., that is unique to his work), but which he still calls 'the dialectic method'.2) Finally, I have added this challenge to some of my posts of late:"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680And there was good reason for this challenge; here it is again:"As I have also pointed out, I begin with this statement by Marx about what his method and 'the dialectic method' amounted to, and I interpret everything else in that light — until, that is, you, or someone else, can come up with another summary of 'the dialectic method', written, published or endorsed by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to the passage published in the Postface (i.e .,1873 or after), that informs us that he accepted or agreed with Engels's view of 'the dialectic'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=3#comment-37604So, unless you can come up with such a passage, there is no justification for you re-inserting Hegel or his concepts into Marx's 'dialectic method'.Which is why I added these comments (partly quoted above):"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."Oh wait!"There isn't one!"Now, you can't quote a single text written by Marx, published in or after 1873, that tells us that Hegel had any input in his 'method' or in 'the dialectic method'."Whereas, there is one that supports my interpretation."Get over it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680

---

[Young Master Smeet]

OK, we're being dialectical here.Here is the common ground: The "St. Petersberg" Paragraph is the the only published ccount of dialectic by Marx.  It is, I believe, common ground, that it is not a complete or definitive statement, but the only one we have.  We agree it is silent on Hegel: where we disagree is on what to make of that silence: Young Mistress Lichtenstein maintains that it is exclusory, I maintain that it is simply silence.  This is the point at dispute.Now, to rise to a challenge.

YMS on the Labour Theory of Value wrote:

The value of market goods is based on the amount of human effort it takes to replace them.  The source of profits is the difference between the amount of effort involved in replacing goods, and the cost of buying the type of skills involved in replacing them.  Not all of that effort can be realised in money terms

There, the labour theory of value.So, back to Marx, he was addressing the appearance of Hegelianism within his works (or alleged Hegelianism): hence why he follows the St. Petersberg paragraph with an analysis of why he may have used Hegelian terminology, a disclaimer that his method is the opposite of Hegel's, and an an acknowldgement that Hegel was "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner" .I do not need to find anotehr statement by Marx, nor am I looking for one, the words in the current one are enough to back up my argument.  I think the silence is non-exhaustive, I think the St. petersberg paragraph (for exanmple) does not discuss what the underlying laws of development are, or how they work, but it does claim"Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. " which is as near Hegelian as I need.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YMS:"It is, I believe, common ground, that it is not a complete or definitive statement, but the only one we have.  We agree it is silent on Hegel: where we disagree is on what to make of that silence: Young Mistress Lichtenstein maintains that it is exclusory, I maintain that it is simply silence.  This is the point at dispute." [Bold addedWell, you once again miss the point; here it is again:"My argument isn't, and has never been, that Marx doesn't "mention Hegel" (added on edit: or is silent about Hegel), but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary."Here is how I put this in two of my first posts in this thread (one of which was in reply to you!):"In the above passage, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found (upside down or 'the right way up') — no "contradictions", no change of 'quantity into quality', no 'negation of the negation', no 'unity and identity of opposites' no 'interconnected Totality', no 'universal change' –, and yet Marx still calls this the 'dialectic method"' and says of it that it is 'my method'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy#comment-37562"In that summary, not one single Hegelian concept is to be found, upside down or 'the right way up', and yet Marx still calls this 'the dialectic method' (note, not part of, or one aspect of, 'the dialectic method', but 'the dialectic method'), and 'my method'. So, Marx's 'method' is a Hegel-free zone ('upside down or the right way up')." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=2#comment-37586This appears to have flown over your head.Nor is it any part of my argument that the summary Marx added is a "definitive" account of 'the dialectic method' — just that it is indeed a summary (which is what I have called it from the get-go) — and it contains no trace of Hegel or any of his ideas.So, what is your reply to my challenge that you produce, what you had said you could provide — a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value"? [Bold added.]Err…, this sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't even the Labour Theory of Value [LTV]:"The value of market goods is based on the amount of human effort it takes to replace them.  The source of profits is the difference between the amount of effort involved in replacing goods, and the cost of buying the type of skills involved in replacing them.  Not all of that effort can be realised in money terms.""Effort"? The LTV has nothing to do with "effort". "Labour power" (which is independent of any "effort" put into producing a commodity) is central to the LTV. "Value"? — use value or exchange value? "Replace"? Where is that in the LTV? No mention of fixed capital, or the falling rate of profit. No hint of the relative form or the equivalent form of value. Your "definitive description" is a joke.Now, either the terms you used (i.e., "effort" and "value", etc.) were meant to be synonyms of the terms/concepts Marx used, or their equivalent. But my challenge was this:"Now, I challenge you to write a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" and fail to mention, for example, surplus value, abstract labour, the equivalent and the relative form of value, use value, exchange value, the falling rate of profit, variable/constant capital (or their equivalents and/or synonyms), etc., etc. Until you do, the above claim of yours can only be viewed as grandstanding." [Bold added.]Hence, we are still waiting for a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" — not a sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't the LTV."So, back to Marx, he was addressing the appearance of Hegelianism within his works (or alleged Hegelianism): hence why he follows the St. Petersberg paragraph with an analysis of why he may have used Hegelian terminology, a disclaimer that his method is the opposite of Hegel's, and an acknowledgement that Hegel was 'first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner'."1) Again you present us with a bowdlerised version of Marx's comment, which distorts its meaning. We have been here several times.2) I asked this (quoting you):"I'm sorry, where does Marx add 'Hegel to someone else's summary'?"You failed to answer.3) The rest of the above quote we have been over many times (but see below). Hence, I refer you to my earlier response to it."I do not need to find another statement by Marx, nor am I looking for one, the words in the current one are enough to back up my argument.  I think the silence is non-exhaustive, I think the St. Petersburg paragraph (for example) does not discuss what the underlying laws of development are, or how they work, but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."It's almost as if I hadn't said this in my last reply:"2) Finally, I have added this challenge to some of my posts of late:"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680"And there was good reason for this challenge; here it is again:"As I have also pointed out, I begin with this statement by Marx about what his method and 'the dialectic method' amounted to, and I interpret everything else in that light — until, that is, you, or someone else, can come up with another summary of 'the dialectic method', written, published or endorsed by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to the passage published in the Postface (i.e .,1873 or after), that informs us that he accepted or agreed with Engels's view of 'the dialectic'." [Bold added.]http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=3#comment-37604"So, unless you can come up with such a passage, there is no justification for you re-inserting Hegel or his concepts into Marx's 'dialectic method'."Which is why I added these comments (partly quoted above):"Of course, if you can find another summary of the 'dialectic method', written and published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to 1873, which does what you say — i.e., shows "there was a germ of truth within the Hegelian dialectic" — let's see it."Oh wait!"There isn't one!"Now, you can't quote a single text written by Marx, published in or after 1873, that tells us that Hegel had any input in his 'method' or in 'the dialectic method'."Whereas, there is one that supports my interpretation."Get over it."http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-philosophy?page=7#comment-37680But, as was the case with most of your other posts, I am sure you will ignore this again, and I will have to repeat it many times before it sinks in.So be it…Finally:"but it does claim 'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."1) Is this idea unique to Hegel (which is what my challenge laid out)?2) I'd be grateful if you'd provide us with a referenced quote from Hegel to which this is "near". 

---

[Young Master Smeet]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

but that there is no trace of Hegel or any of his concepts in that summary.

Exactly, the St. Peterberg paragraph is silent, entirely silent about Hegel, our dispute is what that silence means.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Hence, we are still waiting for a "definitive description of the Labour Theory of Value" — not a sub-GCSE summary of something that isn't the LTV.

It was definitive, as in of giving a definition, if it was partial, incomplete, etc. then it was so in the same manner as the St. Petersberg paragraph.  It is the only one you will get out of me, like the St. Petersberg paragraph.  What you do with the silences in it, an any legimimate inferences, like the St, Petersberg paragraph, is up to you. You may wish to study the text, and context, around it.  "Effort" was not a synonym, nice try, it was an encapsulation."'Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact.' which is as near Hegelian as I need."1) No such ideas would not be unique to Hegel, he was only  "first to present [dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner " (K. Marx).2) The nearness is in my understanding of Hegel and Hegelianism passim, I may be wrong.I reiterate, that I do not need to find any other text by Marx, my evidence is in the Afterword to Capital, the text written by Marx, and you cannot account for Marx' ascribing to Hegel being "first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner", you have tried, weakly, and failed.

[Author]

Posts