On April 21st and 22nd I shall
be heading north from Chapel Hill to give two lectures. At Brown, I shall be offering the last in a
series of Political Theory workshops that have been taking place every second
week throughout the year. Then on the 22nd,
I shall speak to a faculty study group at MIT organized by a young Political
Scientist there. On both occasions, my
topic will be the work I have done over forty years on the thought of Karl
Marx. My theme, I am a trifle
embarrassed to say, is rather self-congratulatory. I shall be arguing that my work on Marx is quite
literally unique. I am unaware of anyone
else who has ever attempted to do what I have done. Indeed, I am unaware of anyone who has even
conceived the idea of doing what I have done, namely, merging a philosophical
and literary critical analysis and interpretation of Capital with a mathematical reconstruction of the economic theory
set forth in that text, thereby producing not simply several disparate interpretations
side by side but a unified, integrated literary/mathematical understanding of
Marx’s reading of bourgeois capitalism.
There is a deeper and broader thesis underlying this
work, viz. that because society is
inevitably and unavoidably ideologically encoded and mystified, all fully satisfactory
social theory must be written in an ironic voice that acknowledges and
communicates that mystification, all the while seeking to penetrate and supersede
it. One of the secondary implications of
this thesis, incidentally, is that successful works of social theory, like
great works of fiction, cannot be redacted in textbooks but must be read in the
original authorial voice. That is why
we read Capital itself even though we
can quite well acquaint ourselves with Chemistry without reading Lavoisier.
The MIT folks have promised to read the brief 25,000
word summary of my work that I posted on this blog under the title “A Unified Reading
of Marx.” [I sent it to them as an email
attachment seven months ago.] The Brown
group, alas, have not made that commitment, so I shall have to try to
communicate in thirty minutes some elements of what it would take me two hours
or more to summarize.
I shall report on my success or failure.
What would be some of the other works of social theory that one has to read in the original text?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I've never been able to read Capital. I find it hard going and Marx, as a narrator in Capital (I enjoy his historical works), does not attract me or capture my attention. Lately, I've been reading David Harvey about Marx and I find that more to my literary taste.
Professor, Marx would be great as your next adventure with recording and uploading lectures!
ReplyDeleteI second Ian's comment!
ReplyDeleteProf. Wolff, I must've missed this essay and I can't seem to be able to find it with the search function or in the box.net archive. Could you perhaps re-post a link to it? Thank you in advance! I'll be starting a reading group on Capital with colleagues from history and anthropology in a couple of weeks' time -- I confess that I failed to make it through much of Capital in previous attempts, so your essay should help.
ReplyDeleteEnzo, I think the link you want is
ReplyDeletehttps://app.box.com/shared/n72u3p7pyj/2/79244772/6754022563/1
It is on the second page of the box.net link given on the "Philosopher's Stone" home page. Title of "A Unified Reading of Marx on the box.net menu, fuller title of "The Literary, Economic, Philosophical, Historical and Sociological Unity of Das Kapital" in the actual document.
Wow. Thank you all. I can just go fishing! Have just spent a frustrating but ultimately successful half hour signing my wife up for a course in the adult education program at Duke. Now I can return to commenting on the clown show that passes for politics in this great nation.
ReplyDelete