[OPE-L:5674] Re: Re: Reduction (hegelians)

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Sun May 27 2001 - 04:13:17 EDT

Christopher Arthur wrote:

> >Allin Cottrell wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
> >>
> >> > >If you believe that commodities can be resolved into labour and
> >> > >labour alone, then you believe in magic.
> >> >
> >> > But Steve no one is saying that; of course there will remain some
> >> > natural residue which is not objectified labor. Marx never said
> >> > otherwise. In fact in both Capital 1 and the the Critique of the
> >> > Gotha Programme he emphasized that wealth is the product of both
> >> > labor and nature...as you surely know
> >>
> >> Agreed.  The non-labour residue is composed of the materials supplied
> >> gratis by nature, which are crucial to a commodity's use-value but
> >> have no bearing on its value.
> >>
> >> Allin.
> >
> >____________________________
> >
> >Allin, the point here is not about "materials supplied gratis by nature".
> >That is always a part of production process. The commodity residue is
> >about the residue that will always remain of the *produced means of
> >production*. It ultimately strikes at the *originary* method of
> >reasoning, that is, the essence of something could be understood by
> >reducing it to its origin. The commodity residue argument is showing that
> >this is simply not true. If you want to understand *capitalist
> >production* or the nature of production in capitalism, you simply cannot
> >go back to the imaginary origin of production with the imaginary first
> >man/woman who had to produce something without any aid of produced means
> >of production. Once you begin with capitalist production, where the class
> >of capitalist exists only on the basis of control over the produced means
> >of production, then there is no logical way of reducing this state of
> >affair to the imaginary state of affair where no produced means of
> >production existed. I think this is a serious methodological issue, which
> >the Hegelian Marxists are dealing with by simply closing their eyes to.
> >Cheers, ajit sinha
> Ajit
> I only have time to write one line: it is absolutely foreign to Hegelian
> methodology to go back to such an originary condition. When we get to the
> capital form we just take C coming in with an already given value and go
> from there.
> C


Chris, you just cannot take C coming in with an already given value and go
from there. That's the main point, isn't it. Tell us how can you do it, and
how do you do it, and i'll show you the problem with your logic. Cheers, ajit

> 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT