Jurriaan Bendien (djjb99@worldonline.nl)
Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:13:19 +0100
Jerry, I think we are getting into a spot of aggravation here, so this is
my last post on this question. You wrote:
>To say that "the value of labour [sic] itself is not a fixed but a
>variable magnitude" does *not* at all suggest that the development of a
>"theory of wages which incorporates all of the determinants of that
>subject" is a "virtually impossible task". Indeed, he suggests *nothing*
>of the sort above.
I did not say that Marx suggested it. I am asking you to consider the
complexity of the subject which you are really talking about, and your
"levels of abstraction". And if you think you can produce a universal
theory of wage determination under capitalism in general, which abstracts
from specific conditions in different countries and regions, well then go
ahead and do it. Prove it. You might like to start with the reserve army of
labour. I don't think it is very useful.
>What is the "law of wages" that Marx specifies?
Marx states the level of the wage is determined by (oscillates around) the
value of labour power, which has a physical and a moral/historical
component. That is the general law that Marx specifies. You can phrase that
more eloquently, but that is what it amounts to. As we know, he develops
that law a bit more, implicitly and explicitly, not sufficiently for our
purposes, but that is the basic law of motion.
>
>Of course, these "generalities" need to be developed, explained, and
>deepened, but that is the task of theory.
>
I think it is not just a task of conceptual development but a task of solid
empirical analysis, and I don't think we get very far with disquisitions
about capitalism "in general" here. Moreover, many scholars have already
worked on these issues - I mentioned Botwinick already - why ignore them ?
Because they lack the Marxist "purity" you desire perhaps ? because they
are not "dialectical" enough ?
> Clearly, *Marx* thought that he was able to
>"complete" the subject of cycles (even if he didn't do it). Not once did
>he ever suggest that the lack of data was a hurdle which he was incapable
>of overcoming in terms of developing the theory of capitalist crises and
>cycles.
In the Marx/Engels corespondence you wil find a letter which relates how
Marx talked with Samuel Moore about the possibility of investigating
economic crises statistically and formulating "mathematical laws" to
explain them. However, Marx seems to conclude he had to abandon that
project because he didn't have sufficient data (I don't remember the exact
quotology, on which you can correct me). This letter is also cited by
Wassily Leontief in his essay on the significance of Marx for modern
economics reprinted in the volume edited by David Horowitz (who
incidentally nowadays holds rightwing views). Economic data in Marx's own
time were sparse, and there was no comprehensive statistical material on
wages in Britain at that time.
>
>Marx's method is briefly explained in the "Introduction" to the
>_Grundrisse_, unless you have a better source? (of course, the "Prefaces"
>and "Introductions" to Volume 1 provide some valuable insights as well).
In working out what Marx's method was, I don't just look at the few
explicit statements he makes about his method. That is imo stupid. I have
to consider what he actually did, and what he ended up writing about it.
And as far as I am concerned he was a very creative but rather messy
researcher who frequently changed tack and frequently lacked systematicity
in his approach. I certainly would not want to emulate him in many
respects, and I personally don't care much for his Hegelian "rococo". What
exactly Marx meant by his "dialectical method" is a moot point and
something which we will probably never be able to establish beyond any
doubt. I have my ideas about it, but I will keep that for my own research
if I get to do it, since I believe the validity of a method proves itself
only by the results, by the real research that it generates.
>That is a good way of avoiding answering the question of the worker.
Better than yours, mister. Actually I did talk to a couple of workers about
it today but we didn't come to any firm conclusions. I won't bother you
with the details of our discussion though because you don't seem to be one
of us. You seem to be one of these people who likes to tell other people
how to talk to the workers, whilst at the same time fulminating about
"managers".
>We, though, have an *obligation* to give an answer to this -- most basic
>-- theoretical (and practical) question. Without it, we only have hints at
>and suggestions of a theory, rather than a theory proper.
So what am I supposed to say now ? Yes, boss, I'll do your bidding ?
>Exactly! You have put your finger on how workers are examined in _Capital_
>-- as subjects without a subjectivity.
I suppose that depends on your reading. I am not an Althusserian so I don't
subscribe to that sort of bourgeois interpretation of Marx. Actually, in
Capital Vol. 1 Marx e.g. waxes with moral indignation about the treatment
of the working classes numerous times because it was WORSE than you would
normally treat a horse. For you, that has nothing to do with "subjectivity"
but for me it does. It's just a different reading, that's all.
And human labour is different from
>the physical activity of horses because workers have subjectivity. E.g.
>workers can organize collectively and win a higher wage. Can horses,
>through their collective action, succeed in winning reforms from their
>owners?
I don't know sufficiently about horses and the relationship between horses
and horse owners, so I cannot give you a case. For me, workers are first of
all human beings deserving respect.
>It is precisely the ability of humans to change the world, rather than
>the presence of thumbs, which separates out the economic role of human
>labor vs. the physical productive activity of horses.
I would work a bit more on that idea if I were you.
>
>You, yourself, suggested it above.
Suggested what ?
And, btw, I didn't invent the
>expression. Marx used the term as well.
So where does Marx talk about character masks and in what exact context ? I
cannot recall this.
>What did you expect him to
>say -- that he should have devoted more time to his theoretical and
>political-economic writings and research and less to party-building?
That's for me to know and for you to speculate about, which you seem to
enjoy. But I'll tell you what though, I have more respect for him than I
have for you, because he did the things that you only talk about.
>Nonetheless, I'm sure he believed it. And being politically active and
>concerned with developing (and understanding) theory shouldn't be viewed
>as mutually exclusive.
I would go further than that. I would say without the experience of both
you are at best a proto-Marxist. As for myself, I would no longer call
myself a Marxist, I would call myself a socialist. And I think that is very
"Marxist", though perhaps it means I shouldn't be on your list.
Regards
Jurriaan
PS - I hope this post has indicated something to you about the subjectivity
of workers, if nothing else.
Return-Path: <glevy@pratt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
X-Sender: X-Sender: glevy@acnet
To: John Ernst <ernst@pipeline.com>
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory
Re Jurriaan's [OPE-L:1580]:
> Jerry, I think we are getting into a spot of aggravation here, so this is
> my last post on this question. <snip>
> Moreover, many scholars have already
> worked on these issues - I mentioned Botwinick already - why ignore them ?
> Because they lack the Marxist "purity" you desire perhaps ? because they
> are not "dialectical" enough ? <snip>
> Better than yours, mister. Actually I did talk to a couple of workers about
> it today but we didn't come to any firm conclusions. I won't bother you
> with the details of our discussion though because you don't seem to be one
> of us. <snip>
> Yes, boss, I'll do your bidding ? <snip>
> That's for me to know and for you to speculate about, which you seem to
> enjoy. But I'll tell you what though, I have more respect for him than I
> have for you, because he did the things that you only talk about. <snip>
> I am not an Althusserian so I don't subscribe to that sort of bourgeois
> interpretation of Marx.
Under other circumstances I would be happy to respond to the substantive
points you made. I have in the past enjoyed communicating with you and I
look forward to future communication with you on other threads. However,
given the tone of the above and the personal innuendo, this will be our
last exchange on this subject.
In solidarity, Jerry
Return-Path: <glevy@pratt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
X-Sender: X-Sender: glevy@acnet
To: John Ernst <ernst@pipeline.com>
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory
Re Jurriaan's [OPE-L:1580]:
> Jerry, I think we are getting into a spot of aggravation here, so this is
> my last post on this question. <snip>
> Moreover, many scholars have already
> worked on these issues - I mentioned Botwinick already - why ignore them ?
> Because they lack the Marxist "purity" you desire perhaps ? because they
> are not "dialectical" enough ? <snip>
> Better than yours, mister. Actually I did talk to a couple of workers about
> it today but we didn't come to any firm conclusions. I won't bother you
> with the details of our discussion though because you don't seem to be one
> of us. <snip>
> Yes, boss, I'll do your bidding ? <snip>
> That's for me to know and for you to speculate about, which you seem to
> enjoy. But I'll tell you what though, I have more respect for him than I
> have for you, because he did the things that you only talk about. <snip>
> I am not an Althusserian so I don't subscribe to that sort of bourgeois
> interpretation of Marx.
Under other circumstances I would be happy to respond to the substantive
points you made. I have in the past enjoyed communicating with you and I
look forward to future communication with you on other threads. However,
given the tone of the above and the personal innuendo, this will be our
last exchange on this subject.
In solidarity, Jerry
Return-Path: <glevy@pratt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:54:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
X-Sender: X-Sender: glevy@acnet
To: John Ernst <ernst@pipeline.com>
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:00:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU>
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:1581] Re: Lapides and Marx's wage theory
Re Jurriaan's [OPE-L:1580]:
> Jerry, I think we are getting into a spot of aggravation here, so this is
> my last post on this question. <snip>
> Moreover, many scholars have already
> worked on these issues - I mentioned Botwinick already - why ignore them ?
> Because they lack the Marxist "purity" you desire perhaps ? because they
> are not "dialectical" enough ? <snip>
> Better than yours, mister. Actually I did talk to a couple of workers about
> it today but we didn't come to any firm conclusions. I won't bother you
> with the details of our discussion though because you don't seem to be one
> of us. <snip>
> Yes, boss, I'll do your bidding ? <snip>
> That's for me to know and for you to speculate about, which you seem to
> enjoy. But I'll tell you what though, I have more respect for him than I
> have for you, because he did the things that you only talk about. <snip>
> I am not an Althusserian so I don't subscribe to that sort of bourgeois
> interpretation of Marx.
Under other circumstances I would be happy to respond to the substantive
points you made. I have in the past enjoyed communicating with you and I
look forward to future communication with you on other threads. However,
given the tone of the above and the personal innuendo, this will be our
last exchange on this subject.
In solidarity, Jerry
Return-Path: <glevy@pratt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
X-Sender: X-Sender: glevy@acnet
To: John Ernst <ernst@pipeline.com>
Subject: [OPE-L:1582] Re: Althusser and Hegel (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:32:23
From: zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Cc: Kenneth Lapides <lapides@sedona.net>
Subject: [OPE-L:1582] Re: Althusser and Hegel
I join Jurriaan in no longer wishing to debate "missing books", Althusser,
or Hegel with Jerry.
On 10/24/99 at 03:30 PM, Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said:
>To begin with, let me turn the question around, and ask you why Althusser
>and Althusserians attempt to demonstrate a "epistemological break" in
>Marx rather than simply going about developing their own
>interpretation(s) of capitalism?
Put on reading glasses for all the constructive attempts which have been
made; maybe no "Second" Book, but nevertheless!!!
>Do you think that there is more textual evidence in Marx for an
>"epistemological break" than for the 6-book-plan? Why appeal to Marx --
>in his grave -- for permission to develop a new social theory? After all,
>you don't NEED his permission, right?
"Epistemological breaks" can at least contrast one set of works with
another, rather than emptiness.
>Anyway ... getting back to what I was trying to say, I think there is
>scant textual evidence for an "epistemological break" in Marx.
Jurriaan seems to agree. So, my departure from discussing this with you
shares a unity with an anti-Althusserian ("I am not an Althusserian so I
don't subscribe to that sort of bourgeois interpretation of Marx").
>However, if there was an "epistemological break", then surely this would
>have been noted by the Marx scholar, Kenneth Lapides. Does he think that
>there is evidence based on his research into Marx for an "epistemological
>break"?
You respect Kenneth Lapides as a "Marx scholar"! That means that you
thoroughly reject the "scholarly dishonesty" charge leveled by Mike L.
against Lapides. Perhaps you'd comply with Lapides' request of our list
members: "His charges are out of line, and he should withdraw them and
apologize; if he does not then other members of this list should urge him
to do so." ...
>And -- just to set the record straight -- wasn't Althusser (a leading
>member of the French Communist Party) a Stalinist? Many of the students
>and workers in France in 1968 thought so, I believe. Moreover, the
>context in which Althusser developed his theory (as a counter to Sarte
>and the existentialists and other "Marxist-Humanists" who were influenced
>by the publication of the _Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844_)
>could be seen as oppositional to these (primarily) non-(or anti-)
>Stalinist groups.
Correction: A leading dissident [!!!] member of the French CP (Louis
Althusser, "Ce qui ne peut plus durer dans le parti communiste" [What can
no longer be tolerated in the Communist Party], Maspero: Paris, 1978. ...
>As for Lenin: rather than trading quotes from him about Hegel, let me
>simply note that he undertook a serious study of Hegel. This would be
>beneficial for other Marxists, including Althusserians, as well, imho.
Lenin undertook a "serious study of Hegel" (but not before age 45!), while
Althusser did NOT undertake a serious study of Hegel? And what gives you
the right to pronounce on what is "beneficial" for any of us to read or
not read?
>... Hegel and Feuerbach and "Humanists" are
>treated as a spectre in Althusser, i.e. people who should be feared (and
>dismissed). Yet, there is too little explanation in Althusser to justify
>such a fear.
Fear? Let's talk real: I fear for Mumia's life under the American
bourgeois state!
Long live Mumia! Paul
Return-Path: <glevy@pratt.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 15:24:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
X-Sender: X-Sender: glevy@acnet
To: John Ernst <ernst@pipeline.com>
Subject: [OPE-L:1583] They want to execute Mumia
From: zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:51:39
Subject: [OPE-L:1583] They want to execute Mumia
PLEASE send faxes and letters as urgently requested so that Mumia gets a
"Stay of Executive" and an Evidentiary Hearing"!
A copy of Mumia's petition for Habeas Corpus is at
http://mojo.calyx.net/~refuse/mumia/101699petition.html
This is URGENT. In Solidarity, Paul Zarembka
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 18:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Angela Beallor <nojustice_nopeace@yahoo.com>
Subj.: This is ... SERIOUS! Get on the Ball for Mumia!
please help spread the word....
URGENT ACTION ALERT! MUMIA's LIFE DEPENDS ON US!
Mumia's case has been assigned to Federal District Court Judge William H.
Yohn. Judge Yohn has NOT yet lifted Mumia's death warrant by granting a
stay of execution! As a result the judge is FORCING people to take to the
streets! Suppporters in both San Fransico and Chicago have been ATTACKED
by police because they WILL NOT remain silent and allow this government to
commit MURDER!
As early as Tuesday, October 19, 1999, Judge Yohn's clerk announced that
BOTH sides could send letters to the judge stating their position on the
case. The International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia JUST LEARNED
of this announcement yesterday, October 20th. A day AFTER the
announcement! That means that this system--as is ALREADY EVIDENT by
Mumia's continued captivity on PHASE II--can still NOT BE TRUSTED to do
what is right!
The International Concerned Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal is asking
that THE PEOPLE DEMAND JUSTICE! We need EVERYONE to write to Judge Yohn
and demand TWO things:
1. LIFT the death warrant by granting a stay of execution.
2. Grant Mumia an EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
We are asking EVERYONE to write a letter to the Judge AND SEND A COPY to
Mumia's attorney, Leonard Weinglass so that we will have ALL of the
letters from Mumia's supporters when it is time to go into court.
Remember, BOTH sides have been told to send letters.
Send your letters to...
Judge William H. Yohn, Jr.
United States District Court
2609 United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597 - 4361
(215) 597 - 6390 (fax)
AND SEND A COPY to Mumia's attorney Leonard Weinglass!
address your letter to Leonard as follows...
Judge William H. Yohn, Jr.
c/o Leonard Weinglass, Esq.
6 West 20th Street
Suite 10A
New York, New York 10011
We know that the FOP is pressuring Judge Yohn NOT to lift the death
warrant. Much depends on Yohn's decision. He can deny Mumia's request
for an evidentiary hearing and decide the case based ONLY on the facts
that Sabo let in--which DOES NOT include, among other things, the fact
that the alleged "confession" was reported OVER 60 days after the
shootings and that witnesses such as Pamela Jenkins and Veronica Jones
have since come forward and testified in the PCRA hearings that they were
COERCED by police and FORCED to LIE about Mumia being the shooter! By NOT
lifting the warrant and NOT granting a stay of execution, Judge Yohn could
be taking the position that Mumia's appeal can be disposed of BEFORE
December 2, 1999. That means Mumia WOULD REMAIN ON PHASE II. We MUST
DEMAND that the stay be lifted AND WE MUST DEMAND that Mumia receive this
hearing!
Here is some information to help you formulate your letter:
THE STAY...
Although Mumia has filed his new appeal in federal court, he has yet to
receive a stay of execution. Another prisoner, who just got his death
warrant, filed his federal appeal and got a stay the SAME day. A stay is
supposed to be standard procedure. When Mumia filed his appeal in the
state courts, he was not given an automatic stay then either. Instead,
Sabo let Mumia's death warrant stand for 10 DAYS before his execution
date! Sabo onll granted the stay because of the INTERNATIONAL AND
NATIONWIDE PRESSURE OF THE PEOPLE! We MUST REMAIN VIGILANT!
Remember, Mumia is still under FORCIBLE SUICIDE WATCH. That's 24
hour-a-day supervision with NO access to supporters by visit or telephone.
THE NEW APPEAL...
On Friday, October 15, 1999, Mumia's attorneys filed a writ of habeas
corpus. In over 160 pages they cited 29 violations of Mumia's
constitutional rights. These violations include:
suppression of evidence by police andprosecutors
the coercing of witnesses
the fabricated "confession" story
the suppression of documents about police surveillance of Mumia
the ineffective defense counsel in Mumia's first "trial"
how Mumia was NOT allowed to represent himself
how Mumia was BARRED from the courtroom in his own "trial"
the state's use of ALL of its 11 peremptory challenges to
STRIKE Black people from the jury
how the prosecutor used Mumia's involvement in the Black
Panther Party to argue that Mumia should be executed
THE DEMAND FOR A NEW HEARING...
Mumia's habeas corpus petition to the federal court requests a hearing in
the federal court to bring in the witnesses and evidence that were denied
by Sabo in the Pennsylvania courts. Getting this hearing is CRUCIAL! It
will be BOTH the first AND last time Mumia can present this evidence in
court. If Mumia is denied an evidentiary hearing, ALL future appeals will
be based on the "evidence" allowed and interpreted by Sabo. Only a new
hearing can get the evidence of Mumia's actual innocence on the record!
WE NEED EVERYONE TO TAKE A STAND! Write and DEMAND both that a stay and
an evidentiary hearing be granted.
For more information, contact Pam Africa, International Concerned Family &
Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal at 215-476-8812.
keep up the good work! stay on the move......
ACT NOW! PASS IT ON!
-----------------------------------------------------
End of forwarded message by zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu
-----------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jan 03 2000 - 12:18:33 EST