From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2007 - 11:56:15 EDT
[Diego replying to Ajit:] > 1. This debate reminds me of the forest/tree question. You think we must > study the tree before looking at the forest. By contrast, I think Fred, > others and also I follow Marx in thinking that the correct procedure is > studying the forest before analysing the tree. Hi Diego: If one were to "follow Marx", wouldn't the "correct procedure" [sequentially] be the following? 1) Firstly, you identify the subject -- "The Forest". 2) Secondly, you conduct extensive research into the history of the Forest and Trees (and related topics) and read and subject to critique what others had written about the Forest and the Trees. 3) Then, you organize your thoughts in outline form and begin to write the drafts for your study of The Forest. Marx, of course, makes revisions as he proceeded with the writing -- which, as it turns out, did not follow the order of his exposition. Thus, the drafts for what was later published as Volume 3 of Book 1 (in a planned 6-book study) were written before the drafts for Volume 1 of Book 1. As we all know, he only lived long enough to publish Book 1, Volume 1. [Hopefully, you will _not_ follow Marx in this way: i.e. you live a much longer and healthier life!] 4) When you begin your exposition (in Ch. 1 of Volume 1 of Book 1) you write: "Where The Forrest prevails, there is an 'immense collection of trees'; the individual tree appears as its most elementary form. Our investigation begins with the analysis of the tree." And, of course, you proceed from 4) to analyze in more concrete form the character of The Forest. The Tree, hence, that you analyze, is part of the Forrest, rather than a tree in general. However, it is not any particular, concrete tree. In that sense, it is an Abstract Tree. [It is not an analysis initially of any particular tree or species of tree.] In any event, Marx did not begin his analysis in _Capital_ by saying that first we must analyze the Forrest as a Whole. He did not begin his analysis by presenting a Macro Theory of The Forrest. Quite the contrary. *He Began with the Tree!* To call an analysis of The Forrest that begins with an analysis of The Tree a "macro" analysis is hence very misleading! > In my opinion, it is not > mainly a question of sequential versus simultaneous. It goes beyond: it is > the question of the necessary rejection of methodological individualism. > Those who believe necessary to start from the individual behavior in > order to understand the system seem to forget that the individuals are socially > or globally determined. Micro-agents must be understood in their > macroeconomic circumstance. This is for instance why for Marx classes > come before individuals. And his analysis of commodities and money came before the General Formula for Capital. Also, note well that the subject of classes is supposed to come AFTER _Capital_. Before one can analyze classes more concretely (I.e. as diversity and unity-in-diversity rather than merely simple unity), one has to answer some basic questions such as: "The question to be answered next is: 'What makes a class?'; and this arises automatically from answering another question: 'What makes wage-laborers, capitalists and landowners the formative element of the three great social classes?'" (Vol. 3, Ch. 52, Penguin ed. pp. 1025-1026). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT