[ show plain text ]
John Holloway <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Can definition be part of the process of critique? I think
>probably not, but I know I haven't answered Paul's point about variable
>and constant capital.
There is also other new concepts which Marx defined: mode of production,
relations of production, productive forces, labor power, production of
absolute surplus value, production of relative surplus value. (I leave
off accumulation of capital as that is the subject of my paper.)
>Critique is the movement of anti-fetishisation that is the theoretical
>recuperation of the power of work or, better, the theoretical
>recuperation of the all-constitutive power of human doing. If that is not
>central to the revolutionary process, then I don't know what is.
Critique is ONLY the movement of anti-fetishization or INCLUDES the
movement of anti-fetishization among other factors?
>To say that critique is not central to Capital is to say that the concept
>of fetishism is not central to Capital, which presumably means forgetting
>about Vol.1, ch.1 and everything that follows it.
A 12-page section on fetishism in one chapter does not a book of 724 pages
make. Production of surplus value would have a greater claim (328 pages),
followed by accumulation of capital (196 pages). Even wages gets more
attention (28 pages in a whole "Part").
P.S. John, do you know anything of Juan Pablo Perez Sainz? He was working
on topics close to your own, but I have lost complete track of him.
Thanks for any info.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT