From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 14 2006 - 14:45:20 EDT
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > Ajit: > > Let's begin with a memory refresher. __________________ Jerry, before I take up your refresher, let me refresh you a bit too: First you had written: “3. On the "scope" of an analysis: This depends on: a) the inner nature of what one is attempting to describe;” To which I had posed the question: For example, how do you know that capitalism has "inner nature"? and how did you find it? In the next post you went on to say: “You may ask: what is essential? Well, if the subject is capitalism, then -- for instance -- money is an essential aspect of that subject. If one has a theory of capitalism which could also be used to describe non-capitalist modes of production or doesn't have an adequate theory of money (and instead substitutes the fiction of numeraire) then one's story is too short. Walrasian theory, for instance, is "too short".” Then to my two questions, you responded thus: By the > way, how do you know that "Well, if the subject is > capitalism, then-- for instance -- money is an > essential aspect of that subject"? Ajit: The central and essential importance of money to the subject of capitalism is evident from the fact that products tend to be produced as commodities in that mode of production. > Does this essence > of your subject dance around in the street or you have > used some method of analysis to discover it? Well, yes, to the extent that commodities and money are necessarily linked, it can dance in the street. No need to "discover" its immediate importance -- every child in a capitalist society comes to understand on some level the essential role of money. Now let me remind you of your dancing steps, which is a serious problem here for me: By “inner nature” one could understand “essence” of a thing. But then this “inner nature” in the next post turns into: what is “essential” as if “inner nature” or “essence” and “essential” are the same thing. Let’s say lung is an organ that is “essential” to human life. Does this mean that one could also say that Lung is the “essence” or “inner nature” of human life? Of course not! You have already tip toed from one concept to another. But then you don’t stop there in the same post the “essential” turns into “important”, as if what is important is also essential. Then again you come back to: “To deny that commodities, money, and capital (and I could list other characteristics) are essential to capitalism is to deny the reality of capitalism. Such a stubborn denial -- in the name of anti-essentialism -- prevents an understanding of the subject. That was the meaning of my reference to dogs' fleas and sparrows' chips.” Now how can one carry on a debate on epistemology with someone who seems to think that “essence”, “essential”, and “important” mean pretty much the same thing? Let me explain, breathing may be “essential” for human life but by that token it does not become either the “essence” or the “inner nature” of human life. Ask yourself, what is the “essence” of human life? Or for that matter, ask yourself, what is the “inner nature” of human beings? And you will realize that the answers to those questions are not simple. They are basically metaphysical questions. Though nobody would probably deny that breathing is “essential” to human life, one may legitimately say that there is no “essence” to human life or “inner nature” of human beings. I don’t understand who gave you this idea that anti-essentialist position implies a negation of the idea of “essential” or “important”. Most of the sensible people will agree that lung is a more important organ than a toe nail for human life, but that does not mean that these people must agree that lung has anything to do with the essence of human life. Now, let me come down from “essence” to “essential”—a concept you appear more comfortable with—and back to your specific obsession: money. My question to you is: how do you know money is the lung and not the toe nails of capitalism? As far as children are concerned, they may think that the toe nails are essential elements of human life—as they see it everyday and some of them may be fascinated by it—whereas many may not even know that something like lung even exists inside their body. The point is that your observation is not much of a guide here. And from your own perspective, don’t you think transportation of goods is “essential” to capitalism? If no, why not? And if yes, then why don’t you rally against those people who ignore transportation of goods in their analysis of capitalism? And why Marx was not supposed to write a book on transportation of goods for a totalizing knowledge of capitalism in general? Do you get my point? My point is that up till now you have not made one point. I hope this was helpful. Cheers, ajit sinha ___________________________________ You previously > asked me > a direct question: > > > By the > > way, how do you know that "Well, if the subject is > > capitalism, then-- for instance -- money is an > > essential aspect of that subject"? > > to which I gave a direct answer: > > > The central and essential importance of money to > the > > subject of capitalism is evident from the fact > that > > products tend to be produced as commodities in > that > > mode of production. > > You now offer the following: > > > So according to you, most of the greatest > economists > > of all times, > > Your original question and my answer were not framed > with reference to what you call "the greatest > economists > of all times". > > Please be responsive and don't muddy the discussion. > > The point I was making -- as I went on to write in > my > post -- is that commodities and money are > necessarily > linked. If it is self-evident that commodity > production is > essential to capitalism; it is also self-evident > that money > is essential for that mode of production (more > later). > > You asked: > > > Does this essence of your subject dance around in > the > > street or you have used some method of analysis to > > discover it? > > and I replied: > > > Well, yes, to the extent that commodities and > money > > are necessarily linked, it can dance in the > street. No > > need to "discover" its immediate importance -- > every > > child in a capitalist society comes to > understand on > > some level the essential role of money. > > To which you now reply: > > > Observe yourself how you are dancing around now! > You > > had called money to be "essential", now you say > "no > > need to discover its immediate importance". Is > > "Immediate importance" equivalent to being > > "essenctial"? Again, notice yourself how quickly > you > > have contradicted yourself. Earlier you had said, > "it > > [i.e. I did] conflates topics associated > > with an understanding of capitalism in general and > > topics which are associated with conjunctural > analyses > > of specific social formations." Does your money > above > > dance in the street of capitalism in general or > some > > contingent capitalist formation? You have moved > from > > your claim to an abstract object of knowledge to a > > claim to an observation of a contingent impirical > > fact--this observation apparently turns out to be > your > > "method" for determinig the so-called "essence" > and > > you don't seem to be aware of it. By the way, If I > > were you I'll not believe in whatever children > seem to > > know--most of what they know is crap! > > Well, I'll leave that last assertion for child > psychologists > to dispute or verify. > > Turning (again) to the issue at hand: is money > 'essential' for > capitalism and 'how do you know that'? > > This is related in my view to how can one justify > the claim > that commodities are essential to capitalism. > Theory can > and should, where possible, begin with a concrete > material > reality rather than a deduction. How does Marx, > for instance, > justify his starting point of the commodity? He > simply says: > "The wealth of societies in which the capitalist > mode of > production prevails appears as an 'immense > collection of > commodities'; the individual commodity appears as > its > elementary form. Our investigation therefore begins > with > the analysis of the commodity". In other words, > the essential > role of commodities to capitalism is taken to be -- > at first -- a > *given* which can be readily observed in the reality > of > modern society. OF COURSE, that's not the end of > the story. > Quite the contrary, it's the _beginning_ of the > story. In the same > way, the essential importance of money to > capitalism can > be taken as a given. I.e. it is a self-evident > proposition which > everyone in capitalist society can observe as an > empirical fact > which does not (immediately) require supporting > logical rationalization > or historical or empirical study; this self-evident > proposition -- > the essential role of commodities and money -- is > then systematically > considered and explicated. The purpose of that > explication, though, is > not to "prove" a self-evident reality of capitalism. > Rather, it is > to interrogate how the character of commodities and > money, to > a large degree, shapes the character of capitalism. > > In the same way, it is OBVIOUS that capital and > capitalists are > ESSENTIAL for the operation of CAPITALism. Again, > the recognition > of this reality does not mean that what might be > considered to be a > "given" is not interrogated: quite the contrary, > what is taken as given > must be explored. > > To deny that commodities, money, and capital (and I > could list other > characteristics) are essential to capitalism is to > deny the reality > of capitalism. Such a stubborn denial -- in the > name of > anti-essentialism -- prevents an understanding of > the subject. That > was the meaning of my reference to dogs' fleas and > sparrows' chips. If > you can't say that money is more essential to > capitalism than fleas and > chirps then I doubt you will be able to say anything > of meaning about > capitalism. To deny that money is essential for > capitalism is _worse_ > than being a 'flat-earther' since _everyone_ in > capitalist society > comprehends the _reality_ that money is essential > for the operation of > such a society whereas the fact that the Earth is > not flat is not > self-evident and had to be discovered. > > In solidarity, Jerry > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT