Area bacheca: 820&
m) Roberto Fineschi (University of Siena, Italy)
Can we consider the Grundrisse the dialectically most developed version of Marx's theory of Capital?
In the German debate of the '60s and '70s emerged a position, which pointed out a 'logical' attitude in Marx's method. According to Backhaus and Reichelt, in the Grundrisse we have a pure dialectical development of categories, which became weaker and weaker in the following drafts of Capital and in the published edition of Book I. A 'reduction' of dialectics was maintained by Goehler, as well. The most important topics in this debate were value-form and commodity circulation (misinterpreted by Engels as Simple Commodity Production). A few MEGA-Editors such as Hecker, Liezt, who in that period were publishing those editions of Capital book I personally edited either by Marx or Engels, maintained that the dialectic was not weakened at all: it was the presentation, which was 'popularized'. However, they too dealt only with value-form and simple circulation. Others thought that the theory was effectively improved, but especially because the dialectics was weakened and the theory as a whole became less dialectical than before. I think that considering not only value-form but other topics sketched in the Grundrisse, we may say, that Marx's theory of Capital became at the same time more dialectical and more consistent, even if the 'final' version of it did not find a proper solution for all the new problems posited by the new setting.