From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 29 2004 - 17:27:13 EST
Hi Andy. > But the analogy with a cell seems apt > enough. It has stages of development through time - to grasp the > system is to have some idea of the stages, and vice versa. Perhaps you are reading too much into this analogy? An essential aspect of the 'cell', indeed the reason _why_ it develops through stages, is that it is composed of organic (and living) matter. Yet, commodities themselves are not (necessarily) alive nor (necessarily) composed of organic matter. Just about all analogies can be over-done: i.e. one has to ask where and when an analogy is relevant and where and when it can be misleading. (NB: I have already suggested an alternative reading in which the constitution and cycle ['stages'] of the commodity can be grasped conceptually.) > I'm not sure that there is such a convergence, in general - > interesting issue to explore further, time permitting Neither am I. It is a working hypothesis. Another working hypothesis that I have been considering presenting is that as we move away from questions of basic theory and method and examine more concrete and contingent phenomena, there are some common understandings of contemporary capitalism by Hegelian-Marxists and Althusserian-Marxists. To explain this hypothesis further would require that one compare systematic dialectic understandings of contingency to the Althusserian concept of overdetermination. Time permitting (which it won't be for a while) I would like to explore _that_ issue further. And while I'm at it, I'd like to throw 'Open Marxism', Uno-theory, and surplus approach theory into the mix to discover whether there are some areas of convergence (as well as known areas of disagreement) in their respective understandings of contemporary capitalism. > > Have you read Geert's contribution to the Albritton and Simoulis eds. > > volume? I believe it is particularly relevant to this exchange since > > it concerns the theorization of the contingent, using the instance of > > inflation, from a systematic dialectical perspective.> > Yes - very useful, esp. on methodological points. Shows how the oft > repeated criticism of systematic dialectics that it cannot find room > for contingency is very wrong. Exactly. I guess all political-economy traditions within Marxism have been accused of something for which they are innocent. It's nice when such a criticism, based on an inadequate comprehension of a theory, can be laid to rest. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 00:00:02 EST