> Vol. 1 of Capital is ultimately "about" capitalism as a "stage" in the
> historical process conceived as a set of internally related "educational"
> "stages in the development of the human mind", the "educastion" taking place
> within the successive forms of the "labour process" understood as "schools".
This is a rather forced Hegelian reading of Capital. While there may be passages where Marx slips into this kind of anthropological metaphor, I don't think it's what it's 'all about'. Really, it's more of a realist sociology of the economic sphere of capitalism, which can't be collapsed into a fairytale about a somehow representative or singular 'human mind'. Wasn't this the point of Marx's critique of Feuerbach?