From: Michael Schauerte (mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2007 - 22:13:17 EDT
I'm not exactly sure how to respond to Ajit's depiction of me, based on a few posts, as a Marxist in a sort of religious sense as a true believer. I'll just say that it seems unfair and sounds patronizing. My aim is to better understand capitalism and I happen to think that a lot can be learned from Marx. I don't think the fact Marx wrote in the 19th century automatically renders it invalid. Shouldn't our standard be whether something is true or false (or more true or less true) rather than if it is new or old? When I said that "I agreed" with you, I was responding to your one-sentence comment about the importance of consideirng the wage in relation to surplus-value. I agreed because the theory of the wage is related to the concept of labor-power which is central to understanding surplus-value. Perhaps you could elaborate on your idea and then I will be able to respond. I will try to respond to some of the points Jurriaan made (my comments in italics). 1) Their abstraction is not an abstraction from any real empirical object, it's an abstraction from another abstraction, and that can go anywhere within reason, since it is not disciplined by a real empirical object. At least somebody like Paul Bairoch studied real history. This may be true of Marxists, but the fact that Marx's starting point is concrete reality is made clear in the very first sentence of Capital where he notes that material wealth takes the form of commodities and then proceeds to examine the commodity. 2) Exaggerated claims are made about the uniqueness and speciality of Marx's abstractive procedures, even although nobody can agree on what exactly they were, let alone replicate them convincingly. I totally agree. Many Marxists seem to view Marx's "method" as some sort of magic wand. They would be better advised to examine how he carries out his analysis than discuss his method, and that is why I recognized that my own description might sound scholastic because I was describing rather than applying his method of abstraction (which is not the sole property of Marx, by the way) 3) Many times Marx is simply sloppy, and he isn't even aware of the full implications of his own creative thought. In part, this is because he never published the full manuscript. I agree. 4) The suggestion is we should apply Marx's method of abstraction, rather than use our own brains and narratives, and the most advanced abstractive techniques of today's science. I don't follow. Any sort of analysis is abstraction in the sense I described of setting aside some elements so as to pose questions in clear or "pure" forms. We obviously have to use our own brains to do this. As for those who merit the criticism you mentioned in 2), it is perhaps true that they try to rely on Marx rather than using their own brains, but they misintepret him so badly and his use of abstraction, that I don't think they could actually be described as applying "Marx's method of abstraction." 5) The logic of discovery (i.e. the discovery of the dialectics in the subjectmatter) is confused with the dialectical presentation of categories and theorems. You have to analyse something real before you can present your findings in a dialectical way. I think I agree with this statement, particularly the final sentence. 6) Marx's dialectical meanings are often embedded in the German language, where one word can function in multiple conventional meanings. I'll have to take your word for it, because my German ability is a work in progress 7) The reference to "levels of abstraction" is often a subterfuge, betraying ignorance about what the real questions are that need to be asked, and inability to know how to study a real empirical object. I agree in the sense already mentioned that simply describing the method without applying it makes it sound mystical or scholastic. That is probably why Marx only discussed his approach in the prefaces, etc. rather than trying to write a book called Das Method I'll have to leave Uno for another day. Mata ne, Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT