Single seriously16 dating
It is, however, self-evident that a theory which views modern capitalist production as a mere passing stage in the economic history of mankind, must make use of terms different from those habitual to writers who look upon that form of production as imperishable and final.
Whether the necessity which forced Marx to adopt his peculiar use of language is 'self-evident,' as Engels claims, is open to question, but to question it now would be to depart from my chosen inquiry.
Eight years later, in his Introduction to Capital III (after a considerable volume of misinterpretation had passed under the bridge), Engels returns to this subject, mentioning yet another difficulty in Marx's use of words.It is to assume that what we take to be 'common sense' is an adequate foundation on which to build an understanding of Marxism, that there is no fundamental difference between his conception of social reality and our own.Engels has already said enough to indicate the dangers in making this assumption, but I should also like to show its influence on at least one standard interpretation of Marx's theories.appears to be a threefold one,' or his allusion to theory which under certain circumstances becomes a 'material force?' Marx's statements frequently jar us, and instances of obscurity in his work, occasions where two or more interpretations seem equally applicable, are more numerous still.