Notes on Postone V: A further note on structure.

The structure of TLSD is so weird. As I noted before I thought it was odd that: (a) Postone provided his criticism of other interpretations of Marx prior to his interpretation and (b) did not include discussions or citations of Engels or other value-form theory Marxists. Now that I have gotten to the section where he begins his proper exegesis of Marx (b) is starting to fall into place. He has mentioned Engels editing of volumes two and three. He has also cited Rubin and Colletti. (Granted Postone dismisses them on grounds that he doesn’t substantiate–they both fall prey to the presupposition of the standpoint of labour even though they highlight abstract labour.) This is why it seems to me that it makes even more sense to have the exegesis first, then his criticism of other interpretations. It would make more sense in terms of how the argument is presented and some of the repetition might be cut down. Instead of the introduction stating he would offer a fundamental re-interpretation, the second and the third chapter stating how this re-interpretation is different than traditional marxism and critical theory and touching upon Marx’s relation to Ricardo, then the fourth chapter providing an exegetical analysis that substantiates his interpretation and touches on these points, if he did the exegesis first and then applied it there would not be so much need to recap and reiterate his argument.  This may seem like a pedantic complaint but I think it would make the book easier and more enjoyable to read.


About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Marxology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s