Thanks for these reminders John... Bloch's 'Not Yet' was an undergrad
'first love' explored along with Fromm's distinction between 'being' and
'having' and David Bohm's enfolded universes.... all good weapons for a
*critique* of value forms (negation of love).
On the other hand, your dichotomy between doing 'critique' and doing
'political economy' seems (to me) a tad peculiar - reminds me of
disciplinary divisions in universities, or the infamous normative-positive
distinction in economics. Imo, doing political economy is *one way* to
critique what is, with the purpose of illuminating the Not Yet. It is not
the *only way*, of course.
:)
Nicky
At 12:16 3/04/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>
> Nicky says: "Love is an extremely powerful and revolutionary idea, but
>how to take it
>into the economics discourse in a meaningful way? How would you do it
>John?"
>
> I think my answer would be that it is impossible to take "love" into
>economic discourse, precisely because, as Jerry points out, the categories
>of economics ("Marxist" or otherwise) - value, capital, money etc - are
>constructed on the negation of love. This is surely why, as David Y. points
>out, it does not make sense to speak of Marxist economics but only of a
>Marxist critique of economics (or political economy, or anything else for
>that matter).
>
> David says: "Nevertheless as materialists we must understand the
>pressures of work in an academic environment is not conducive to a
>revolutionary perspective...."
> I agree. But the problem for all of us who live in a capitalist society
>(whether we work in a university or not) is how we live in-and-against, how
>we criticise theoretically-practically, in other words.
>
> Allin says: "I agree entirely." Thank you very much, Allin, that's
>lovely, I think it's the first time it's happened. But there must be
>something wrong, mustn't there?
> And he continues: " Paul Cockshott and I have argued at some length
>that Marxist economics should not just be about the analysis of
>capitalism (though obviously that's important) but also about the
>design of better economic mechanisms. Developing ideas along these
>lines won't of itself change the world (i.e., not in abstraction from
>real political struggles), but it's a necessary part of the picture.
>"OK, you don't like capitalism: What should we replace it with?"
> Isn't the issue the question of the relation between the possible future
>and the present, of how we understand the possible future (the Not Yet, as
>Bloch would say) as existing now. In other words, isn't the point of the
>critique of political economy to show how "love" exists as corrosive force
>within value, that this is not an external negation.
>
> Sorry to be so slow in replying. I'm not grumpy, just slow.
>
> Love to all,
>
> John
>
>
-----------------------
Nicola Taylor
Faculty of Economics
Murdoch University
South Street
Murdoch
W.A. 6150
Australia
Tel. 61 8 9385 1130
email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT