Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:49:33 +0000 From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk> Subject: BHA: Class Hi Gary >going through Bhaskar and there was no reference at >all to class - merely the ensemble of master-slave relations, one of which >was the labour-capital. He may have said that arguably this was the most >important, but I have never been able to locate that. When he defines master-slave-type relations Bhaskar always includes class, so to say 'no reference at all' seems a bit misleading, even with the qualifier. I'm pretty sure he does say somewhere in so many words that the capital- labour relation is arguably the most important today, but can't locate it right now. However, how about DPF 98, where he speaks of a world '*dominated* by the logic of commodification' [my emphasis], which of course has the capital-labour relation as its presupposition (DPF 168, 247-8)? Or PE 101-2, which finds heuristically acceptable the historical materialist thesis of the 'primacy of the mode of production and reproduction'? Or PE152-3 which speaks of a structural 'dialectic of material interests' which is crucial to the overall dialectic of freedom and at the present time tendentially produces 'an increase in self- consciousness or sentient social self-awareness on the part of an increasingly globalized proletariat...'? When in DPF 333 Bhaskar takes Marx to task for being 'fixated on the wage-labour/capital relation at the expense of the totality of master- slave relations (most obviously those of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, age, health and bodily disabilities generally)' he is in my view merely pointing out the (by now) obvious, that Marx did by and large neglect these other relations. He is IMO *not* saying that the wage-labour/capital relation is not of central importance in capitalism. Mervyn Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes >Hi Andrew, > >Just a word on Bhaskar's politics. Collier describes him as a libertarian >socialist. And I think that is the key. It explains how people like myself >were puzzled when first going through Bhaskar and there was no reference at >all to class - merely the ensemble of master-slave relations, one of which >was the labour-capital. He may have said that arguably this was the most >important, but I have never been able to locate that. > >Bhaskar's libertarianism also shows in his support for "socialized markets". > >As for being anti-Lenin. Of course. But over on the ><marxism-AT-lists.panix.com>, Lou Proyect has argued strongly and convincingly >that much of what we call "Leninism", especially with regard to political >organisation really comes from Zinoviev. > >regards > >Gary > -- Mervyn Hartwig 13 Spenser Road Herne Hill London SE24 ONS United Kingdom Tel: 020 7 737 2892 Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005