Re: [OPE-L] Robert Owen

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 12:21:15 EDT

Falling further behind. Welcome Dogan. Not sure whether anyone has
commented on Marx's discussion of the cooperative movement in what I
believe to be his first speech as General Secretary of the International.
If I remember correctly, he both praises the movement and criticizes
interest in it in his own time.
An important work in Owen's tradition would be the posthumous work of the
 mathematical linguist Zellig Harris The Transformation of Capitalist
Yours, Rakesh

> Hi Jerry,
> I agree with you. Since Marx's Capital (4 volumes) is about the
> contradictory nature of capital one has to read the whole work to have a
> complete picture
> of the issue. But I think the very nature of 'give me that  and I will
> give
> this' is essentailly analysed in the first chapter. I have  discussed the
> nature of the market and its relation to a more or less developed
> socialism. I
> agree with you that some elements of the market can be tolarated in  a
> transitory
> period from capitalism to socialism. But in the long term market as  such
> must be overcome because it is the negation of socialism.
> Fraternite,
> Dogan.
> In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 13:11:35 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt
> Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:
> Hi Dogan:
> If the issue is whether markets are part of the emancipatory
> mission of Utopian societies, I think one has to go _at least_
> a few chapters _beyond_ Chapter 1 of Volume I of _Capital_.
> In the formula M - C - M' one can, for instance, see problems
> for such utopias: i.e. the outcome of  'market utopias' are
> different for different segments and hence there tends to be
> increasing differences in income and wealth distribution.  Yet,
> surely,  solidarity and equality are two of the hallmarks of  Utopias,
> so the market produces outcomes which come into conflict
> with these socialist principles.  This does not mean that  markets
> can not be tolerated in socialist societies but that the  dangers
> (of which there are many, including what mainstream economists
> call "market failures") have to be recognized and there have to
> be workable policies to ensure that emancipatory principles are
> preserved and reinforced.
> In solidarity, Jerry
> By  'market in itself' I mean that we can develop an objective
> understanding
> of  market independently from what all sorts of ideologies say about and
> ascribe  to it. I mean the question we have to pose is this: what is the
> nature of
> market. Based on this objective grasp we can then judge about these
> ideologies whether they are right or wrong. Market is an institution where
>  humans get
> in touch with one another for a certain purpose: the exchange of
> commodities. That is to say that human relations on market are mediated by
>  commodities -
> either directly or indirectly by means of money. So, the  question what is
> the nature of market changes into the question what is the  nature of
> commodity
> and money.The analysis of commodity and money must then  be analysed in
> terms
> of human relation because commodities are being  exchanged by human
> beings.
> These questions are profoundly posed and  analysed, I think, in the first
> Chapter of the Capital of Marx. This is my  reply to your two questions in
> short.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST