Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:17:28 -0500 (EST) From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu.pratt.edu> Subject: M-TH: Value, conscious action, vulgarity Response to Juan: Is there *anyone* today in the _entire world_, other than the Argentinian-accountant-genius Herr Inigo, who is a Marxist who has written on the subject of political economy? Perhaps Juan will be so kind as to tell us the _specific names_ of these individuals? Jerry <snip> > Mainstream economics is not just mainstream economics. It is mainstream > _vulgar_ economics. As such, it is the opposite to the production of the > scientific cognition about the simplest forms of the present-day general > social relation. Its reason of existence is the production of the > apologetics of capitalism, and therefore, of the very negation of science: > ideology. Only an inverted "law of value" can be pushed out into vulgar > economy and become a "credible version" from its point of view. > I very much doubt this could be Kliman or Freeman intention. And, yet, they > are trapped inside the limits traced by vulgar economy itself, that turn > the essential real determination of the simplest form of our general social > relation, the value-form of the social product, into a _concept_ that can > be interpreted, and hence defined, in many different ways. This is > precisely a point Kliman and I start to discuss through a direct exchange > (since he is not a member of Marxism-lists and I have been banned from > ope-l by Jerry's political discrimination). Kliman explicitly asserts that > it is about "interpreting Marx's value theory" in a way that shows it free > from internal inconsistency. I sustain it is about facing with one's > thought capital in reality, to follow the development of its simplest > specific forms until reaching its revolutionary potencies, thus reproducing > the necessity of one's concrete action in one's thought. And it is in this > reproduction that "Capital" necessarily comes in: armed with it, our > reproduction of the real social forms in thought acquires the strength of > being a process of recognition from the social point of view. > For reasons of length, I can't present here how Kliman and Freeman's, and > mine opposite starting points develop. But after following the complete > development of commodities into capital-commodities, and therefore of > values into prices of production, I find no incoherence at all in Marx's > own reproduction. But I do find that the path followed by Kliman and > Freeman by interpreting concepts produces by itself a mass of incoherences > where there was none. <snip> --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005