Subject: [OPE-L:1706] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: C. J. Arthur (cjarthur@pavilion.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 21 1999 - 12:44:48 EST
Nicky writes
>
>Chris Arthur makes a transcendental argument from 'real' practices of
>commodity exchange.
I do not use the term "transcendental argument" because I think that the
logic 'peculiar' to our object is hegelian and transcendental suggests a
Kantian position . (Rosenthal the critic of 'new Hegelian marxsim'
proclaims himself a Kantian marxist.) The difference is that a Kantian TA
infers retroductively what *must* be the case from what indubutably *is*
the case; whereas my argument goes from what *might* be the case to what
conditions *would* ground it.
Thus if generalised commodity exchange and production give rise to the
hypothesis that there is a law of value, I am interested in developing the
forms that would grant such a suppositon validity. In Kant you have an
inverted pyramid, but in Hegel the argument is circular; at the end it
posits its presuppositions, but unlike in Kant the presuppositions are not
taken at face value but problematised. (see my piece in Science and
Society.)
Chris A
PS I have a piece in press stating my relation to hegel and to Marx and
recapitaluating my VF dialectic. Anyone who would like to see it please
contact me. I am on Applemac and the piece is in MacPro but I have a
translator that can do most things (allegedly) such as Word for Windows.
Please specify your preferred format.
The book will be The Hegel-marx Connection eds T. Burns and I. Frase
(Macmillan, UK, 2000?)
P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
<cjarthur@waitrose.com>
but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:15 EST