(OPE-L) subjects and objects in capitalism

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 10:27:45 EDT

Re the exchange with Paul C on Thursday, May 08 (was "Is value labour?"):

Paul C wrote previously, in reply to Michael E: 

> I think you are justified in calling attention to the use of the 
> term 'forms' in idealist metaphysics.  I prefer to use 
> terms like 'mode of representation' of value instead 
> of 'value form'. 

I then asked:

> For the purpose of the following question, let's call it exchange-value rather 
> than value-form: What is the difference conceptually between 'mode of
> representation'  and 'form of appearance'? 

Paul replied:

> The absence of a subject in the former. 

That is a virtue?

The (Althusserian?) inference is then that the absence of a subject is somehow 
a benefit in the analysis of capitalism. Yet, doesn't that subject (capitalism)
require the systematic exposition of all of the necessary objects and subjects
related to its comprehension?   I don't understand how a 'subjectless'  social
system can operate.  Without a subject, we can't comprehend class and without
class we can't comprehend class struggle and without class struggle how can 
we grasp  capitalism  (or, for that matter, how can we then comprehend a 
revolutionary process that can lead to the ending of capitalism and its replacement 
by a  "new historic form")?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 10 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT