From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 18:40:45 EDT
> Dear Jerry, > > Of course Marx said that, and how right he was...the fact of the commodity > as product of capital, the subordination of social relations to this form > .... I was referring to the many modern theoreticians who exclude history > from their schema, as if the commodity itself had always taken on the same > character in all the periods of its existence. > > Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <glevy@PRATT.EDU> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:02 PM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: the economic cell-form and form-analysis > > > > Hi Paul B: > > > > > It seems to me that much of the discussion on these matters seems > > > to start from the 'idea' and not from the facts, and once stuck with an > > > idea there seems to be no way out, only a fruitless argument about its > > > applicability. > > > > Neither Marx nor I started from an 'idea' or mere [empty] > > concept. The 'starting point' of the commodity was selected > > because the subject matter of bourgeois society can be > > explained through a systematic dialectical presentation > > beginning with the commodity because it, in a nutshell, > > expresses all of the contraditions inherent in the CMP. > > I don't have it in front of me now -- but Marx says quite > > explicitly in the "Marginal Notes on Wagner" that he does > > _not_ begin with a concept but rather the way in which > > wealth in bourgois society is most typically expressed. > > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 06 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT