From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Mar 03 2007 - 09:42:35 EST
> There is nothing in the analogy as so stated that does not apply to the > distinction between the real definition of the commodity form and price. > Drawing a sharp line between the things we study in nature and in society > is too easy and insulates social science to its loss. Hi Howard: I think, rather, that it's too easy to draw improper analogies between natural processes and social processes. In general, I believe that we should train ourselves not to think of social phenomenon as if they can be grasped with the same logic by which natural processes can be grasped. There are several issues here. Neither capitalism nor any other mode of production are a consequence of natural laws. Nor can their logic be grasped by appeal to the logic of the natural sciences. There are sometimes similarities, but great caution is needed here otherwise we are likely to fall into the trap of bourgeois economics of believing that capitalism or some other mode of production represents the natural order of social life. The appeal to science also leads to the fallacy that the same kind of (formal) logic which is used in certain natural science disciplines can be employed to grasp the character and dynamic tendencies of different modes of production. This can produce mathematically more elegant and sophisticated models (and allow one to have discussions with economists employing other paradigms since mathematical logic -- especially when coupled with English, the language of the leading Empire -- is the 'universal' language of economists) but at an injustice to grasping the contradictory and dynamic character of the subject matter of capitalism. > Analogies to lessons from natural science run throughout Capital. Yes, that's true. So do analogies to literature including mythology. In part this is a question of the _style of exposition_. These analogies, like his analogies to literature are part of his writing style and often, imo, represent simply a literary flourish. In other cases, they reflect Marx's 19th Century understandings of science and, especially, a Darwinian influence. The point is that there is nothing in _Capital_ which can't be explained without reference to analogies to natural processes or literature, is there? In any event, no one is going to convince me about any point in terms of grasping the logic of capitalism by appeal to the logic and findings of the natural sciences. Nor do I think _anyone_ should be so convinced. Such appeals represents a kind of over-reaching and often leads to both bad science and bad political economy. (NB1: this is not to say that there are _no_ connections between natural and social processes -- obviously there are, especially when considering ecological dimensions such as how social activity can alter natural processes which in turn can change social life, etc. ) (NB2: A good example of bad political economy is the belief that scientific theorems developed in the 20th Century can and should be retroactively used to grasp the 19th Century thought of Marx.) > You point out that I identify a social structure linked to the character > of > commodities. Actually my point was more precise. The concept of a > commodity makes no sense except as the product of a particular social form > of labor. That form of labor -- independent producers producing goods > useless to them for private exchange -- gives us a real definition of the > commodity form. All of it, not part of it. You suggest that prices are > part of the real definition of commodities. What else does the definition > include? To be clear: a nominal definition is the kind of thing we do > with a dictionary. Exactly. Those who assert that commodity relations exist in non-capitalist modes of production apply the nominal dictionary definition of commodity: a good which is produced with the intention of being sold. This may help them grasp the existence of those nominal commodities in pre-capitalist or post-capitalist social formations, and it also helps one when you dialogue with mainstream historians and anthropologists (since those other disciplines are likely to use the simple dictionary definition), but it makes it more difficult for one to grasp the subject of capitalism which can be unpacked in large part by considering the larger meaning of the commodity-form and its relation to the value-form and the capital-form. > A real definition identifies the dispositional properties of > a thing such that we know how it persists as what it is and how it tends > to behave. An explanatory mechanism showing how these essential > properties account for manifestations of behavior and other features > is presupposed. It is not a conjunction or gathering of all important > characteristics. Agreed. The real and essential character of commodity requires (amongst much else) price, money, market, etc. This can not be seen by an appeal alone to a particular definition (or what Marx wrote); it must be explained in terms of grasping the inter-connection between different categories associated with comprehending the subject matter of capitalism. The issue thus isn't merely a definition; the issue is grasping how capitalism works. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT