Re Geert's [5308]: > (snip, JL) At least in my view of the > architectonic of Marx's Capital we cannot > directly apply the abstract beginning (V-1, > ch 1 -> - and much beyond that) > empirically. We have a gradual development of > categories (throughout the 3 > volumes) towards categories that could be > applied empirically at all. Much > work to do! (snip, JL) > On page 135 of V-1 (Fowkes transl) Marx > writes: "In the interest of > SIMPLIFICATION, we shall henceforth view > every form [=kind] of labour-power > directly as simple labour-power ..." > In connection see footnote 15 on the same page: > "At this stage of our presentation, the category > of wages does not exist at all." (!) > It seems to me that before a concept of SNLT > could be applied at all, we > need the categories beyond this simplification. > Emprical reality is complex, and the categories > of V-1 do not match with it directly. > Much of the history of Marxian theory can be > characterised as `impatience'. > First impatience with Marx (eager to directly > apply abstract notions). Next > lack of patience to develop the categories > beyond the point reached by Marx. Much work to do indeed! Yet, this very SIMPLE statement if accepted leads one *NECESSARILY* to the next inter-related tasks: 1) write a basic *LIST* of the theoretical work that needs to be done required to reconstruct in thought the nature of the subject matter (capitalism). [GEERT AND OTHERS: WHAT WOULD YOU INCLUDE IN YOUR LIST OF THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?] 2) put the theory that already exists and that you view as non-problematic and the list of the theoretical work that needs to be done [i.e. 1) above] in the context of a logical *OUTLINE* that is appropriate for the task at hand: i.e. reconstructing in thought the nature of capitalism. This "architectonic" [gee, I like that word!] of the subject matter must proceed in a logical *SEQUENCE*. [GEERT AND OTHERS: WHAT WOULD YOUR INITIAL 'OUTLINE' LOOK LIKE?] 3) The *OUTLINE* itself [2) above] must itself be further *SPECIFIED* moving from the most simple and initial outline to the more complex and concrete outline. Thus, one might *BEGIN* 2) with a very general outline that logically places the theoretical work that needs to be done in the context of a *THE MOST GENERAL APPROPRIATE ARCHITECTONIC*. E.g. (here's one possibility of such a general architectonic): 1. Capital 2. Landed Property 3. Wage-Labour 4) The State 5) Foreign Trade 6) World Market and Crisis [GEERT AND OTHERS: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE ABOVE LOGICAL DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER? OR, IF YOU HAVE A MORE APPROPRIATE DIVISION, WHAT WOULD IT BE AND WHY?] THEN, once one has established this most general architectonic, one must *FURTHER SPECIFY AND CONCRETIZE* each of the initial divisions until it incorporates within itself all of the logical divisions appropriate for grasping the subject matter. [GEERT AND OTHERS: HOW WOULD YOU FURTHER SPECIFY AND CONCRETIZE YOUR INITIAL OUTLINE?] This might be thought of as the *INITIAL* process that is required for the SYSTEMATIC DIALECTICAL RECONSTRUCTION of the subject matter in thought. [GEERT AND OTHERS: DO YOU AGREE WITH THE IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A *SYSTEMATIC* DIALECTICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER?] All of the above questions, it seems to me, logically follow as a consequence of the recognition that there is "much work to do"! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT