From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 10:27:45 EDT
Re the exchange with Paul C on Thursday, May 08 (was "Is value labour?"): Paul C wrote previously, in reply to Michael E: > I think you are justified in calling attention to the use of the > term 'forms' in idealist metaphysics. I prefer to use > terms like 'mode of representation' of value instead > of 'value form'. I then asked: > For the purpose of the following question, let's call it exchange-value rather > than value-form: What is the difference conceptually between 'mode of > representation' and 'form of appearance'? Paul replied: > The absence of a subject in the former. That is a virtue? The (Althusserian?) inference is then that the absence of a subject is somehow a benefit in the analysis of capitalism. Yet, doesn't that subject (capitalism) require the systematic exposition of all of the necessary objects and subjects related to its comprehension? I don't understand how a 'subjectless' social system can operate. Without a subject, we can't comprehend class and without class we can't comprehend class struggle and without class struggle how can we grasp capitalism (or, for that matter, how can we then comprehend a revolutionary process that can lead to the ending of capitalism and its replacement by a "new historic form")? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 10 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT