Dear Drewk, With respect to the building of examples which include impossible propositions, ie workers living on air, why should I have to be put up to anything by Jerry? I know nothing of more than recent OPEL exchanges. Could you please give me the reference to the reference by 'the originator', but please try to remember that Marx didn't really believe in the man on the moon who buys without selling, reductio ad absurdum and a good sense of humour are fine in certain circumstances, but not as the basis for an hypothesis. That 'Marxists' , as you say, continually build models of reproduction 'without including' an armaments sector' does not mean that such sectors are not essentally part of department IIb in Marx's own schema. How Marx is misrepresented by others is one thing, we should try not to do so ouselves. Indeed, I agree with you, if the idea is inadequate to the object one has grounds for complaint. Capitalism - modern imperialism - is impossible without armaments, but Marx's schemas easily accomodate this fact. That others .. some now repentant.. such as Kidron, had so little undersatnding of Marx that they invented Department III for the purpose is the obverse of the problem. You end by saying "In any case, I don't think it is good to try to constrain the free movement of thought by making it conform so stringently to appearances". This begs the whole question of method, which is central to the discussions in Opel; when and how to introduce mediating categories so that appearances can be shown to be regulated by the basic social relations of production.. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Drewk <Andrew_Kliman@msn.com> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Date: 13 February 2001 05:47 Subject: [OPE-L:4880] RE: Re: Give us some NUMBERS, Fred! (was: rent and the working class) >In reply to Paul Bullock's OPE-L 4876. > >He wrote: "If workers lived on air there would be no >exploitation, and so no capitalism, w[hic]h rather messes up the >general discussion doesn't it?" > >Did Jerry put you up to this? > >(He harangued me for months and months -- it felt like decades -- >about this issue.) > >It seems to me your methodological beef is not really with me, but >with the originator of the "live on air" assumption. As I'm sure >you know as well as or even better than I, he said that, given a >large enough rise in the composition of capital, the rate of >profit would fall even if workers live on air. He meant that it >would fall, not because of "no exploitation," but despite an >infinite rate of exploitation. > >Marxists continually build models of reproduction without >including an armaments sector. But capitalism could not reproduce >itself for a week, maybe not even for a day, if the State were not >armed to the teeth. So your argument applies equally well against >such models of reproduction. But once we include armaments, we >also need to include a separate sector for army boots, because the >military can't keep the "peace" barefoot. Etc. Etc. > >What I don't understand is why no one ever raises the "capitalism >would be impossible" argument in such contexts. > >In any case, I don't think it is good to try to constrain the free >movement of thought by making it conform so stringently to >appearances. > > >Drewk > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST