From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2006 - 09:41:00 EDT
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > > Jerry, how can you understand capitalism without > > analyzing the role of education in creating the > > ideological conditions for capitalist reproduction > and > > further the role of media, and then again the > > historicity of a culture, the sociology of a > culture, > > the geography of a culture, the whole of natural > > environment and its relation with the mode of > > production on the one hand and the solar system on > the > > other, and the relationship of the solar system > with > > the universe and its relationship with the > multiverse, > > etc., etc. to understand the totality of it all. > How > > many more books did I prescribe for Marx or you > > already? Do you get my point? 'Totality' is just a > > mere slogan! > > Hi Ajit: > > I understand the point you wish to make but don't > agree > with it. We discussed this topic last year, not > within the > context of the 6-book-plan but in a more general > way in the > thread which included a discussion of Anita's > Chocolate > Cake. > > 1. My objection to the above is that it conflates > topics associated > with an understanding of capitalism in general and > topics which > are associated with conjunctural analyses of > specific social > formations. It also conflates topics associated > with an > understanding of capitalism in general with topics > arising from > specific natural sciences. So, to comprehend the > general > nature of capitalism as a totality does _not_ > require that we > include within an analysis of that subject an > accurate analysis > of the nature of the solar system and whether Pluto > is or is not > a planet. Nor, for example, does it require a > comprehension of > the historicity of _a_ culture or the sociology of > _a_ culture, or > the geography of _a_ culture: these topics are all > (to use your word) > historicized and need to be grasped within the > context of specific > conjunctural studies of individual social > formations. _______________________ You seem to know a lot before even venturing, which creates methodological problems. My point was that the idea of totality as such is nonsense given that everything is connected with everything else one way or the other and thus an understanding of anything in its totality is impossible. So you have to come down from total to less total, you have to draw some lines to frame your canvas, to delimit your subject matter or the object of enquiry. The modern divisions of disciplines is one way the Enlightenment and Science has tried to do it, with which many people have not been happy (including Marx). Can any attempt at delimiting the subject matter be a purely positive exercise without introducing normative consideration is a question that needs to be asked. I do not have time right now to get involved in a debate on what is capitalism or its "inner nature" etc. My sense is that a lot of people think that they know a lot about something without knowing how did they get to know such things. For example, how do you know that capitalism has "inner nature"? and how did you find it? As far as I'm concerned, a short story model is good enough for me. We start abruptly at some point and we stop abruptly at some point and still we say something that interest a community of people. In the final analysis, all creative work is art and our choices are in the end driven by our sense of aesthetic. The idea of totality is also nothing but an aesthetic choice. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ 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