[OPE-L:61] RE: Pros and Cons: Comments

Michael A. Lebowitz (mlebowit@sfu.ca)
Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:56:44 -0700

[ show plain text ]

In message Sat, 16 Sep 1995 03:58:42 -0700, glevy@acnet.pratt.edu responds
to mike lebowitz:

>> the important issue will be to develop the answers immanently, ie ,
>> out of CAPITAL,etc.
> We can not assume that the answers are immanent in Marx. We have to think
> about the analytical questions for ourselves. We can do this in a number
> of ways.
I agree that we cannot assume this but it should be possible to develop
them out of Marx and if we can't, that suggests a problem in Marx. I stress
this because it is contrary to Marx's method to externally juxtapose
categories. Nothing was more common than to treat commodities and money as
if they were separate before Marx (and after), but it is the development of
the inner connection that gives Marx's work its particular strength. What
I'm suggesting is that we attempt the same in relation to the unanswered

>> If the goal is, on the other hand, to add to Marx's
>> work, the answers are to a significant extent extrinsic, no?

> Not necessarily. Extending and adding are related.
What I meant by the distinction was one of intrinsic vs extrinsic links--
ie, the point I've made above.

>No matter where we begin, a methodological
> discussion won't be far behind. If we start with the plans (any plans),
> then the issue will come up immediately. If we start with another
> suggestion, then the methodological issues will follow shortly
> afterwards.
I agree but think this may be a reason to talk about method first. On
the other hand, I'm sure everything we want to talk about is going to come
up one way or the other.
in solidarity,
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island (current location): (604) 333-8810
e-mail: mlebowit@sfu.ca