Fw: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Re: the economic cell-form and form-analysis

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