Jerry writes: >>-- should OUR purpose be to understand capitalISM
rather than capital? (I would say yes).<<
I agree: we don't simply care about what capital does to the
people of the world, but how the people respond. Further, we are
interested in the transcendence of the whole capital vs. people
contradiction (not to mention the capital vs. nature
contradiction).
>>-- what is the "law"?<<
a key question is what Marx meant by the word "law." A general
principle? is it like the "law" of supply & demand or Gresham's
"law" or the "laws" of physics?
Then, what is the "the economic law of motion of modern society"?
>> The law of value?<<
to say that the law of motion of capitalism can be summed up as
the law of value then poses the question: what is the "law of
value"?
>> Don't we have to examine the interrelationships between
different aspects of capitalism before we can say that that there
is *one* law that governs this mode of production? In other
words, isn't the idea that there is *one* law a conclusion that
we can only come to as a result of analysis (rather than a
presumption)?<<
I don't think we should assume that there is only one law, though
of course it depends on what one means by "law."
in ope-l solidarity,
Jim Devine jdevine@lmumail.lmu.edu
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.