Ted Winslow wrote:
>
> If, as Marx appropriating Hegel understands it, history is a set of
> internally related (and, in this sense, "necessary") "stages in the
> development of the human mind",
The history of CAPITALISM can be seen in terms of internal relations; all history certainly can NOT be so understood. This is merely assertion on my part for the present, but the only evidence for the contrary has consisted of philology, of assertions as to what Marx thought. And those assertions have all assumed that Marx's thought was more or less unchanged from the Pzris mss. on. I don't believe that. Marx may have _begun_ by seeing history as the unfolding of some transhistorical subject, but in his mature work he assumes the uniqueness of capitalism as a social system, and his "laws" of history apply only to capitalism.
Carrol