Re: (OPE-L) Robinson and Marx

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Nov 25 2004 - 14:05:33 EST

>At 22:30 +0100 24-11-2004, Anders Ekeland wrote:

>>  The economy is not a deterministic machine, it is full of people,
>>of idelogical fights, of political activity, full of *learning*.

And gambling. Lipietz may have been trying to replace the automaton
putatively implicit in Althusserian structuralism with the gambler.

Yet the gambler, even the heroic Schumpeterian entrepreneur remains
in what Lukacs called the contemplative state which is structurally
selected by the reified structures of commodity fetishism.  A lot of
activity, even political and ideological activity--and capitalist
society is hyper active--would hardly be praxis in a Lukascian
sense. I am thinking here of limited wage gains conditioned on
productivity improvements. Activity and fight yes, but not praxis.
The Sraffian model may be open in some sense but it is not open to
praxis of freely associated producers. The ex post facto fight over
the surplus as physical objects by proletarians as wage recepients
takes the relations and organization of production as technical
givens, as reified, as perduringly objective. The Sraffian model can
appear open only in a world where contemplative common sense has made
praxis unimaginable and closed it off. If it is opening up the
reified world to praxis that is the concern, social scientists would
be better served by Lukacs and his student Guy Debord, not the
Cambridge capital critiques.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EST