Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 01:17:43 +0000 From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt> Subject: Re: M-I: : dialectical materialism dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz wrote: > > Gidday JP. Is this yours? > > > The bourgeoisie takes part in the material and social relations of > > production. It owns the means of production and purchases labour power > > on the market with the purpose of making a profit that allows it to > > accumulate more capital. Their ideas originate from this very material > > practice, located in the very core of the process of the production of > > social existence. If their representations of society are distorted, > > this is because of the position it occupies there and the general > > division between mental and manual labour. What's undialectical is to > > suppose that all ideas must somehow originate unilaterally from the pure > > clash of the hammer on the anvil, ascend upstairs to the bourgeoisie's > > avid ears, then be shrewdly twisted upside down and re-envoyed down > > again. Ah, the treacherous bastards. This looks like the magic bullet > > theory on the JFK killing. > > > If it is, you should disown it fast. Its generalised garbage. The > bourgeoisie do not get their ideas from their position in society or > the division between mental and manual labour. Bourgeois ideology is > reproduced by bourgeois social relations of production, i.e. the > capital-labour relation, [who is talking about pure hammer and anvil > except in your dreams?]which however presents itself in an inverted > fetishised form as equal exchange relations. This is why the > bourgeoisie can claim that workers are equal under capitalism because > they sell their labour-power at its value, and why they also claim their > `fair' shares as the rewards of land and capital; and, why the state > MUST appear as relatively autonomous. That is, citizens are merely equal > exchangers who leave the market place periodically to vote, which is > another way of saying that they are alienated from one another... > Time you went back to the basics of Chapter one Capital One. > Dave. > David Bedggood > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz wrote: > > Gidday JP. Is this yours? > > > The bourgeoisie takes part in the material and social relations of > > production. It owns the means of production and purchases labour power > > on the market with the purpose of making a profit that allows it to > > accumulate more capital. Their ideas originate from this very material > > practice, located in the very core of the process of the production of > > social existence. If their representations of society are distorted, > > this is because of the position it occupies there and the general > > division between mental and manual labour. What's undialectical is to > > suppose that all ideas must somehow originate unilaterally from the pure > > clash of the hammer on the anvil, ascend upstairs to the bourgeoisie's > > avid ears, then be shrewdly twisted upside down and re-envoyed down > > again. Ah, the treacherous bastards. This looks like the magic bullet > > theory on the JFK killing. > > > If it is, you should disown it fast. Its generalised garbage. The > bourgeoisie do not get their ideas from their position in society or > the division between mental and manual labour. Bourgeois ideology is > reproduced by bourgeois social relations of production, i.e. the > capital-labour relation, [who is talking about pure hammer and anvil > except in your dreams?]which however presents itself in an inverted > fetishised form as equal exchange relations. This is why the > bourgeoisie can claim that workers are equal under capitalism because > they sell their labour-power at its value, and why they also claim their > `fair' shares as the rewards of land and capital; and, why the state > MUST appear as relatively autonomous. That is, citizens are merely equal > exchangers who leave the market place periodically to vote, which is > another way of saying that they are alienated from one another... > Time you went back to the basics of Chapter one Capital One. > Dave. > David Bedggood > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- I figured you would be calling anytime soon. Actually, I don't have much quarrel with what you say here. I have said it myself above and before, in the course of this same discussion. With your acute sense of purpose, you just don't get anything of what was it that I was discussing with Andrew. You have a problem that a friend of mine has diagnosed (on other cases) as Artificially Induced Stupidity - AIS. It's a sectarian disease that characterizes itself medico-pathologically by the patient introducing repeatedly his head into his anal orifice. I won't discuss anything with you until you have proved to be completely cured of this repelent habit. Jo=E3o Paulo Monteiro --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005