>I find it very dubious that the "Income Inequality" sits at the very first section Deciding on what to start a bigger work is always a problem with things lik

>I find it very dubious that the "Income Inequality" sits at the very first section Deciding on what to start a bigger work is always a problem with things like this, so I wouldn't be too harsh on it. I believe I read that Marx spent 3 years deciding where exactly to start Capital Vol. I; in fact, he'd completed drafts for Vol. III by that time. After much consideration he started with the analysis of the commodity, not labour, not money, not alienation, not surplus value. He commented in a foreword to the French edition that the French had a habit of wanting to get to the heart of the matter quickly - and for this he apologised. I think your view is that of Marx's Frenchman.