Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 18:16:26 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andrew Brown <a.brown-AT-mdx.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Notes
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU


Ihave some comments on aspects of Rakesh's provocative post -
apologies to Rakesh if I have misinterpreted.

Rakesh suggests that the TMSA is not a transhistorical model, i.e. 
that it does not apply to all societies. On the contrary it applies 
only to capitalistic society. Yet, Rakesh goes on, the TMSA fails 
to account for the essential nature of this society, a historically 
determinate form of sociation. So when Rakesh asks 'Can we not say, 
as Marx said of the classical economists, that Bhaskar's ontology 
only has a limited validity to the social sciences within capitalism 
but would cease to apply in a communist mode of production?' this 
validity must very limited indeed, since the ontology misses the 
essence of its object (so to speak). 

I would like to take this line of reasoning to its logical 
conclusion: just as Marx's theory surpasses the classical political 
economists, so must Bhaskar's ontology be surpassed / transcended. 
What is positive in classical political economy and 
in Bhaskar must be kept, but we must understand it in a 
completely new light; the illumination provided by an 
understanding of the essence of capitalistic society. 

Now, Rakesh's critique is inspired by Patrick Murray which implicitly 
suggests that Murray provides precisely this transcendence of the 
TMSA and CR. If so then:
(1) I do not understand why Rakesh questions whether subjects can 
come to understand capitalistic society. Does not Murray accomplish 
this? 
(2) The relation of Murray's position to CR must be very complex, 
for while both seem to be saying similar things, the former 
represents the transcendence of the latter so surely must be saying 
something very different i.e. terms such as 'social form', 'value 
form', 'mechanism', 'cause' etc. must be given very different 
respective interpretations by Murray and CR. Therefore there is ample 
scope for mutual misunderstanding. 

At the very least this means that I must strongly object 
to the assimilation of Murray's and CR's interpretations of 'form', 
'value', etc. at least without careful argument. This is a 
natural mistake which at first sight Rakesh appears to fall into at 
times in his otherwise excellent post.

Thanks,

andy brown.



Andrew Brown,
School of Economics,
Middlesex University,
Queensway,
Enfield.
EN3 4SF

tel 0181 362 5512


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---