From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Wed Jan 09 2008 - 12:54:28 EST
Dave, we seem to need some clarifications here. Marx defines capital explicitly as relation because isolated approach would not make any sense. So for example an approach to capital without considering labour would not make any sense. If you are arguing against Marx's conception of capital please make it explicit so we know how to approach your claims. Methodologically, relational approach goes back to Leibniz, Smith, Hegel and Marx - not to Descartes. Dogan -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Dave Zachariah <davez@KTH.SE> An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Verschickt: Mi., 9. Jan. 2008, 18:40 Thema: Re: [OPE-L] glossary for V1 of _Capital on 2008-01-09 15:53 Paul Zarembka wrote: > I don't think so but I suppose this is clear enough from my messages. > Paul > > --On 1/9/2008 3:23 PM +0100 Dave Zachariah wrote: > >> But if one says that capital *is* a relation, then "capital >> accumulation" >> --- by definition a quantitative process --- loses its meaning and >> Marxist >> economic theory will be obscured. >> Ok, I know you disagree. But then if capital is by itself a relation, what does it mean to "accumulate relations"? Can an agent do so or only the economic system? Relations are subsets of cartesian products between sets of agents. Then according to the argument above, "capital accumulation" suggests that the cardinality of relation (set) that constitutes capital is increasing. //Dave Z ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST