Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:05:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com>
Subject: M-I: S-R/Dialectics of Time 



[Mark: I should prefer discussing Sohn-Rethel with you until you have had time
to read it].

I am not trying to take the debate off a tangent. Before, you combined the
Dialectics/SR, I did the day before, because I know the relevance.

I think I understand the theme of S-R, "Transcendental Subject" or "Real
Abstraction". The only one who picked up this is Rakesh and he raised a very
valid point: Fetish or Analogy?

So we have to discuss this and sort it out? In such a situation, one party
*asserting* this and the other *asserting* that, does not solve the problem.
This way it will be like the  ping-pong matches with AA. Nothing sinks in.
The only way to move the debate forward is to logically construct an
argument to put forward your views, so that one view or the other gets
eliminated.

S-R says Marx's view applies to commodity as well as science. So how do we
construct the argument? Based on commodity and science. What more can I do to
push the debate forward?

I think if you understand Marx's Universal Equivalent form of value, you
have understod all there is to it about TS. It is the expression of the
whole, relative to its own parts - a very special kind of a relationship.
This is exactly what I do, when I derive the astro constant 23.9479Marx. So
I prove that the analogy exists.

If you feel I am wrong please let me know. I do not think you mean the
discussion to take place like reading the Red Book. Sorry, I have not got
down to reading it. But my system is, some problem must crop up and push me
to the wall to spur me to read. Get me to boo-boo somewhere. That way it
sinks in better. So create the problem from me. 

Ref. math, as I indicate in the post, primitive man's math was: add,
subtract, multiply, divide. It's much easier for you now. You have the
calculator. There won't be careless mistakes etc. Just input the data and
check what I say is correct. If it is a case of using higher math, that's a
different question.
(Ofcourse, for the little trig, somebody will catch me if I am wrong, or you
can get it checked with a friend). Get the astro data checked to see whether
I am cooking up values.

And the way I have linked science is not in an arbitrary way, it is the same
thing Marx says and S-R indicates (in the parts I have), on the creaction of
the conception of time for the purposes of commodity production. So I don't
think I am making any diversions, in this debate. Rather I have got it
correctly focussed. (But strict 'line and length'. How else can you make up
logical arguments?)

As Gerald Levy very appropropriately quoted from Marx:

"What, without the clock, would be a PERIOD in which the value of the
commodity, and therefore the labour time necessary for its production, are
the decisive factor?" 

As for Intellectual and Manual labour, we must wait for this debate to
unravel, and then we can give it some momentum, rather than us trying  to
force it in. I brought this up at one time, you indicated its relevance but
it died there. What can we do? Hey, that's an idea, we must have a phoney
guy on the list, to make outrageous statements (not abusive), related to the
topic to provoke thought and get attacked on all sides (provided it is
permitted by the list).

Or  did I do the mistake here? Without making it so structured, I should
have put the ideas down randomly, little bit here and little bit there, to
provoke and get attacked then turned it round. We must somehow find ways to
get the intellectual tempers up, while keeping the debate civil. Otherwise
no go.
Viraj
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malgosa:

Got your message about my statement. Sorry. This is the reason. As I
explained to you earlier, Marxian thinking process is entirely different,
where we insist that concepts, ideas, knowledge, arise out of mans
interaction with nature and society determined by his social being/social
production, all these pass down to us from generation to generation
changing, turning, twisting, again and again by the social beings that carry
these forward and they continue. In discussions, this premise (social
practice) has to be a common understanding. Without strict observance of
this the debate can not be kept focussed. I think this is a very important
DEBATE for us. We have to concentrate deeply, undisturbed,without having to
counter arguments made on the basis of other premises [Fitch]. Those truly
are out of context for us. In a marxist-list, I thought it would be a
truism. But apparently not clearly so. Also while I was preparing the last
post I was completely dead to the inward mail. You had sent a very nice
post, but I did not see it. Had I seen it, I would not have mentioned your
name. Pls check in the MI version, both the above are corrected. When I find
sometime, I will address some of the issues. Also, in the post referred to,
if you find the math wonky, please go ahead. As a Mathematician, you can
make a good contribution. Also, I have no problems about any side debates.

Best regards/ Viraj
 





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---