From: Martin Kragh (Martin.Kragh@HHS.SE)
Date: Fri Dec 08 2006 - 10:57:46 EST
" 4) Critique is not merely negative. Indeed, the major aspect of the critique of political economy is to develop a systematic comprehension of the subject matter of capitalism. Thus, critique is far more than simply a critical exercise in the comprehension of the history of thought. The _real_ subject matter -- capitalism -- must be grasped. Do you and others agree? Do I leave out something?" To me, personally, the most important aspect of critique is to show also the logical solution for transcending the demonstrated inconsistencies in a theory; thus, nothing "negative" what so ever. Rather, the intellectual development of mankind. Kind regards, Martin -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] För Jerry Levy Skickat: den 8 december 2006 16:48 Till: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Ämne: Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] Karl H. Niebyl "Did you get the impression, though, that it was a Marxian critique?" I'll say this much, it is a critique with some marxist influence. The terminology is his own, and you find not many explicit references to the works by Marx. He regards the development of money in a historical way (role of money develops in accordance with development of industrial society) - however, he completely avoids the dialectical framework, for him money is not a real abstraction it seems to me. He doesn't analyze value, or its subsequent forms from which money develops. Not even on the level of Ricardian theory. ============================================== Hi Martin: Thanks for your fuller explanation. This raises the issue of what is the meaning of *critique* from a Marxian perspective. Here I'm not thinking of whether there are or are not explicit references to Marx, a criteria which is not meaningful in my view unless the critique that one is discussing is a critique of Marx or a critique of some author's interpretation of Marx. "Devastating critique", or "ruthless criticism", means to many a *negative* task only: i.e. the intellectual destruction or annihilation of another perspective. This, however, is a one-sided perspective. From a Marxian perspective, though, critique has several other elements: 1) it grasps those elements of thought that one is critiquing which have merit. 2) it seeks to consider a perspective in terms of not only its logical consistency, but also its material and class roots. This embraces an attempt to locate thought and social realities themselves in terms of historical origins (something that you say was part of Neibyl's book.) 3) there is systematic critique, rather than merely a critique of one author or school of thought. In other words, the critique of an individual perspective is really a sub-critique: i.e. part of a larger project and understanding. 4) Critique is not merely negative. Indeed, the major aspect of the critique of political economy is to develop a systematic comprehension of the subject matter of capitalism. Thus, critique is far more than simply a critical exercise in the comprehension of the history of thought. The _real_ subject matter -- capitalism -- must be grasped. Do you and others agree? Do I leave out something? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST