From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2006 - 09:28:44 EDT
For once, I agree with you Rakesh. ajit sinha --- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote: > >Jerry, the point I made was in a particular > context. > >The context was the possible influence of the > >Physiocracy on Marx's theoretical framework in > >CAPITAL. Now the most original contribution of the > >Physiocrats (particularly Quesnay) was the notion > of > >'surplus'. > > Yes indeed the importance of the French Confucius. > > Equally important as surplus is reproduction, the > theorization of > production and circulation as constrained by the > need to produce > again, no? As John Torrance shows (Marx's Theory of > Ideas), the idea > of self constraining production as ontologically > fundamental can be > found in the early Marx but his early ideas are > vague. And no where > near as analytically breathtaking as the > Physiocratic theory with its > political implications of wu-wei. > > As a student of Sraffa, wouldn't you consider the > discoveries of > surplus and reproduction equally important? > > It's also only with the reproduction schema that > Marx shows that his > science is possible because it does indeed have an > actual object > capable of reproduction through time, the > capitalist mode of > production. Otherwise there would be no object with > enough integrity > and coherence of which to theorize the laws of > motion! In this sense > the second volume of Capital is scientifically > fundamental, the > bedrock of the entire theoretical venture. And it is > also of course > the least studied volume. > > rb > > > > > It is also contended by many that the whole > >of political economy, including Marx's can be > >understood as a 'surplus approach economics'. Now, > in > >that particular context, where the core of the > theory > >revolves around the concept of 'surplus', it is a > >pertinent question to ask: what is surplus? Now you > >can legitimately ask all sorts of different > questions > >such: as what is capitalism? or how all kinds of > >things relate to it. But I'm not interested in > getting > >into such questions, definetely not on ope-l. I > give > >little bit of my time to ope-l and that's all I can > >do. You need to sharpen your questions or put > >alternative point of view within the context of a > >debate, which can be responded to. I'm definitely > not > >interested in writing books on this list. > > > >(By the way, both Rakesh and Howard have > misunderstood > >what I meant by 'point of view'. An agent can > perceve > >something to be a 'surplus' if s/he has command > over > >it and can utilise it in whatever manner s/he deems > >fit.) Cheers, ajit sinha > > > >--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > > > >> > Now I'm not interested in Marxological debate > >> > on this question. But I think a more > interesting > >> > question from theoretical perspective would be > to > >> > ask: what is surplus? > >> > >> Hi Ajit: > >> > >> If we, as you suggest, put aside the > Marxological > >> debate > >> then that leaves us with the question: if one > wants > >> to theorize > >> the subject matter of capitalism, what are the > >> analytical sub- > >> subjects which need to be theorized, what is > their > >> logical > >> connection, and what are their > inter-connections? > >> > >> "What is surplus?" is a trans-historical > question: > >> all > >> class societies have a surplus product. (whether > >> there is also > >> surplus value produced depends, of course, on > the > >> definitions > >> and analysis that one is using). The > theorization > >> of capitalism > >> as a specific subject (rather than the > theorization > >> of a general > >> history of modes of production) requires that we > >> move beyond > >> that question to ask and explicate the answer > to: > >> what > >> distinguishes the capitalist mode of production > from > >> other > >> modes and what is the character and the > >> developmental > >> tendencies and 'contradictions'/'antagonisms' of > >> that mode? > >> > >> If you oppose the conception of capitalism and > >> inter-relationship > >> among sub-subjects expressed in the 6-book-plan, > >> then one > >> still has to put forward an analysis in which > all of > >> the essential topics > >> and logical moments related to the subject > >> (capitalism) are grasped. > >> > >> So, my question to you (note well that I am > >> following your suggestion > >> that the Marxological question be put aside) is: > how > > > are the subjects of > >> capital and wage-labor, capital and landed > property, > >> wage-labor and > > > landed property, capital and the state, > wage-labor > >> and the state, > >> landed property and the state, foreign trade and > the > >> 3 major classes, > >> foreign trade and the state, the world-market > and > >> capital, the world > >> market and the working class, the world market > and > >> landed property, > >> and the world market and capitalism as a whole > >> theorized together? Do > >> you reject the idea that these topics need to be > >> theorized together to > >> understand the subject of capitalism as a > whole?; do > >> you have a > >> suggestion for an alternative framework for > better > >> understanding this > >> subject as a whole? Let me suggest to you that > the > >> question is not > >> "what is surplus?" -- it is how do we fully > answer > >> 'what is capitalism?" > >> and how does it as a (you are not going to like > this > > > word) "totality" > >> operate? > >> > >> In solidarity, Jerry > >> > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT