{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","title":"The Violence of Abstraction The Analytic Foundations of Historical Materialism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0631153187","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","id":"df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","uuid":"df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","title":"The Violence of Abstraction The Analytic Foundations of Historical Materialism","normalized_title":"theviolenceofabstractiontheanalyticfoundationsofhistoricalmaterialism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0631153187","isbns":["0631153187"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":93,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Violence%20of%20Abstraction%20The%20Analytic%20Foundations%20of%20Historical%20Materialism","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/df60fc71-5c84-4680-bd1a-40a5ea8ac5ed/search"},"page":{"printed_page":156,"pdf_page":84,"physical_index":84,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"447c5f682f1ef1578fce816731a85d5cb13186dc0487b62a9431b7a3b89829f0"},"chapter":"The Violence of Abstraction","content":"8 Letter to Kugelmann, 28 December 1862. See further my 1985.\n\n9 The metaphor is interesting - not least in the difference in its connotations from that of basis’ and ‘superstructure’.\n\n10 Marx repeatedly attacks this atomized, individualized view of man', in early and late works alike. I give detailed references in Frisby and Sayer (1986: 91-3).\n\n11 See Frisby and Sayer (1986, ch. 1); Corrigan and Sayer (1985, chs 5 and 6) substantiates this argument for England.\n\n12 Maurice Godelier, in his 1984, discusses Marx's twofold usage of the term class - as a transhistorical and an historical category - in detail. He is amongst the few commentators to have picked this up or appreciated its significance, perhaps because he is an anthropologist used to dealing with societies where class is not an evidently applicable category. E. P. Thompson (1978b) muses over the same problem in the context of eighteenth-century England; so does Laslett (1973).\n\n13 A well-known passage in Capital suggests that while regulative use of state power - to control wages, the working-day, and so on - is ‘an essential element in the so-called primitive accumulation', thereafter ‘direct force' is used only exceptionally, and ‘the dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection. of the labourer to the capitalist' (1867a: 737). Acknowledging the ways in which this is true should not obscure the massive extent to which – as Philip Corrigan and I try to show (1985) - state regulation remains essential to ordering a society in which economic relations can routinely and dully compel.\n\nChapter 5 Interlude: the giraffes among the acacias\n\n1 I discuss them mainly as they arise in his 1978, and ignore the subsequent debate.\n\nChapter 6 The historicity of concepts\n\n1 I develop a more detailed argument for abstract labour being a historical category in my 1983, ch. 2; see also Rubin's seminal 1972 on this concept.\n\n3 See above, chapter 2, note 13, for references.\n\n4 See above, chapter 5, note 2.\n\n5See further my criticisms of Bhaskar on this issue in my 1983: Afterword.\n\nBibliography\n\nWith one or two exceptions, only works directly cited in text and notes are listed here. Works of Marx are cited by date of composition rather than first publication. In cases of posthumously published manuscripts (like Capital vols 2 and 3) I have, as far as possible, given the last date touched: thus Capital 2 is cited as 1878, even though most of it dates from the early 1860s. Writings of other authors are normally cited by the publication date of the edition referred to.\n\nWorks by Marx\n\nA Collections\n\nB Texts\n\n156\n\nNOTES TO PAGES 97-136","previous_page":null,"next_page":null}