From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Tue Apr 03 2007 - 13:59:15 EDT
Hi, Jerry, In my opinion, what Marx says is: what appears to be a tree, is in fact an element of the forest. That is: we see a specific use-value or tree, but as a commodity it has a value, and value cannot be understood unless see it as being a use-value produced with a fraction of the abstract labour of society (the forest). Cheers, Diego ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:56 PM Subject: [OPE-L] the forest and trees and classes of capitalism > [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 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT