Comparing the German Ideology with Capital shows how Marx specified historicity further.
Evidence
One way of measuring the distance—and the difference—between the Marx of this period and the Marx of Capital is precisely by comparing these general formulations with the chapters on “Co-operation” and “The Division of Labour and Manufacture” in Capital , Volume I (chs. 13 and 14) to see how far the concept of historical specificity could itself be further specified. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 480
Categorization
Category: Craft and Method
- XREF: Suggests a reading of Marx that tracks concept refinement across texts — the sort of comparative move useful in my own reading practice and in economic-thought history.
Related
- Marx’s early historical-specificity claims are general where Capital specifies them (similarity 0.91)
- Marx’s concept of historical specificity deepened between German Ideology and Capital (similarity 0.85)
- Capitalism’s phases share general laws but differ in what is conjuncturally specific. (similarity 0.82)
- Historical specificity, not mere materialism, defines Marx’s theory of culture (similarity 0.79)
- Capital is neither a pure theory nor a national history but something else. (similarity 0.79)
- Marx concluded capitalism was the only mode of production he could adequately theorize. (similarity 0.79)
- Historical specificity distinguishes Marx’s materialism from vulgar or technological determinism (similarity 0.79)
- Marx’s method jointly requires material grounding and historical specificity (similarity 0.79)
- Grasping a deviant capitalism requires abstracting its specific differences, not its general features. (similarity 0.79)
- Marx treats culture as accumulated human mastery over nature, not mere description (similarity 0.78)